AMMATICAL READER: 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM 



ON THE 



#ftr Cjwg jtf in|&| irww, 



AND ON THE 



WRITINGS OF ITS COMPILERS. 



IN TWO VOLUMES. 



RIVATE READERS, ADVANCED SCHOOLS, AND COLLEGES. 



BY JAMES BROWN, 

■HOB OF "TEE ALPHASOOPE," "THE FIRST ROUND IN THE LADDER 

TION," "THE HAND-NOMASCOPE," "THE SECOND ROUND IN THE 
LADDER OF EDUCATION/' "THE RATIONAL SYSTEM OF ENGLISH 
RAMMAK IN THREE BOOKS," "AN EXEGESIS 

TIONS, SAID TO BE OF DTFEICULT SOLUTION," AND 
" A SYSTEM OF ANALYZING FORMS." 



1PE 1103 
.B78 

|v. 1 
I Copy 1 



PHILADELPHIA: ~ 

.L.IPPINCOTT, GRAM BO & CO., 

). 20 NORTH FOURTH STRET 
1854. 



^ M c?fy- 





( 



~::^ : - gBKa, 



J LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.? 

#| I,a ? -. |w¥* |° I 

i ^TAeM JB.3<8 I 



J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. J 






THE 



GRAMMATICAL READER: 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM 



ON THE 



AND ON THE 

WETTINGS OF ITS COMPILERS. 

IN TWO VOLUMES, 

DESIGNED FOR 

PRIVATE READERS, ADVANCED SCHOOLS, AND COLLEGES. 
BY JAMES BROWN, 

THE AUTHOR OF "THE ALPHASCOPE," "THE FIRST ROUND IN THE LADDER OF 
EDUCATION/' "'THE HAND-NOMASCOPE," "THE SECOND ROUND IN THE 
LADDER OF EDUCATION," " THE RATIONAL SYSTEM OF ENGLISH 
GRAMMAR IN THREE BOOKS," "AN EXEGESIS OF CONSTRUC- 
TIONS, SAID TO BE OF DIFFICULT SOLUTION," AND 

"'A SYSTEM OF ANALYZING FORMS." ^— — —-^ 



... 



PHILADELPHIA: 
LIPPINCOTT, GRAM BO & CO., 

No. 20 WORTH FOURTH STREET. 
1854. 






R E il A B K S i 

The author of this work has long been satisfied that our schools need 
a Class Book of Criticism on English Grammar. Youth may acquire the 
art of parsing, as it is called, without employing any faculty except the 
memory. But they can never become masters of the genius of our lan- 
guage without a generous exercise of the judgment. Some means, there- 
fore, which will set aside the mere memorizing process, and bring the 
judgment into action, must be employed, or youth must remain ignorant 
of their own language, or acquire a knowledge of it after they shall have 
left school ! 

The old standard, too, by which a person is judged to be competent to 
teach English Grammar, must give place to one which implies more 
knowledge ; a mere ability to parse, neither proves, nor confers a capa 
city to write the English Language with accuracy. 

The interest which one feels in any subject, depends much upon the . 
circumstances under which his attention may be called to it. The interest 
which is excited by an attack upon some custom, practice, or law, is far 
greater than that which is raised from a mere attempt to learn the com- 
mon application of this custom, or law, in the affairs of life. This work 
assails the present popular English Grammars ; and, in it, the principles 
which youth desire to learn, arc more thoroughly discussed, than in the 
theory which it attempts to overthrow. Here the pupil is not only re- 
lieved of the drudgery of ■memorizing, but is delighted, and instructed by 
a vivid debate which not only exposes the unsoundness of the old theory, 
but illustrates, and establishes the 'principles of the new S} 7 stem. He 
would recommend this work, therefore, as a reading Book for the sake 
of that philological strength, that grammatical skill, in the English Lan- 
guage, which nothing but a critical reading of v/orks like this, can give 
to the human mind. 

The Class Book of Criticism sets aside the old Grammars — exposes 
their defects, demonstrates the little use of attending to them, and 
presents to the teacher, the unerring, and only way to the grammar 
of the^English language. It undeceives the most accomplished gram- 
marian, and instructs the most profound philologist ; and it is in a 
variety of ways, and cases, the clergyman's guide in scriptural ex- 
position, the lawyer's interpreter in judicial -discussion, and the mar- 
lijistrate's confirmation in legal decision. 



Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1854, by James Brown, m tm 
Office of the Clerk of the District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. - 



PREFACE. 



The English bids fair to be a living Language through time 
itself. Hence no change, in the means by which its principles are 
taught, calculated to redound to the hcnour of the present, and to 
the good of future generations, should be discouraged by the plea 
of a probable want of longevity in the language itself. 

It is composed of materials derived from various sources ; and 
although these sources are rich even to philogical luxuries, the 
English Language is strong even to that persuasion to which 
reason itself often becomes a sacrifice. Hence considering the 
tender age of the English Language, perhaps it may be said to 
surpass every other ! 

As the English Language is still in its youth, it is yet in a pro- 
gressive state. In general, men have three distinct objects in 
their instruments, means, and institutions. And as these are not 
simultaneous, but successive in their existence, every human 
means, system, and institution must remain a long time in a state 
of progression. 

In building, a man's first object is a house which will provide 
for his necessities. — His second, is a house which will provide for 
his convenience — and his third object is one that will not only pro- 
vide for his comfort, but which will comport with his wealth. 

Now, it is with a nation as it is with an individual ; and it is 
with languages, systems, and institutions as it is with a house. 
Every thing that relates to man, is matter of'progression. Listen 
to Cowper, singing the simple stool into the splendid sofa upon the 
notes of progressive improvement. 

And, if you turn to the stove, you will find that construction 
designed to answer the demands of necessity, thrown aside by the 
hands of genius, which has provided for necessity, convenience, and 
taste in the same thing. 

And, as you turn from the stove to language, jou will find the same 
hand abridging in some parts, augmenting in others, and adjust- 
ing all for convenience, strength, perspicuity ',. despatch, and euphony. 

Mark, the orthography of the italic words. 
" Haue more then thou showest, 
Speak less then thou knowest, 
Lend less then thou owest, 

(iii) 



IV PREFACE. 

Ride more then thou goest, 
Learne more then thou trowest. ' — Lear, p. 288. 
Haue is now have — then is now than — and learne is now learn, 
" Where shall we sojoume till our coronation ? 
" Where it thinks best unto }^our royall selfe. 

Richard od page 186. 
Sojoume, is now sojomm — royall is now royal — selfe is now self. 
" Men's eyes be obedient unto the creatour that they may see 
on think, and yet not another." — Bishop Hooper. 

Creatour is now Creator — on is now one — and think is now thing. 
" The woman's synne was lesse greuous than Adam's synne, and 
lesse hurtful to mankynde." 

Dieus and Pauper, 6th conn. chap. 10. 
" Nor make warre upon me nyght, nor day." 

Squires Tales, fol. h,page 2, col. 1. 
Warre is now war — nyght is now night. 

" Our hope in him is dead : let us relume, 
And use what other meanes is left unto us," &c. 

Timon of Athens, page 67. 
Retume is now return — and meanes is now means. 
It is here seen that language is an instrument which is con- 
tinually changed the better to answer the purpose of those for 
whose use it is intended. And, pray, why, should it not be so ? 
Has not the traveller a right to trim, and smooth his walking stick ? 
shall he not be permitted to cut it down to a size suitable to his 
convenience, and strength ; and eventually, to insert a sword fit 
for his defence, and to give the whole a polish congenial to his 
wish, and taste ? 

Those who have attended to the English language no farther 
than to learn, and use it as it now is, may think that it has 
already attained to its highest degree of excellence. From 
such, however, the author of thin work very widely diifers. Nor 
is he alone in this opinion. — For, in an Oration pronounced at 
Cambridge, August 26, 1824, before the Phi Beta Kappa Society, 
by Edwurd Everett, it is said by this finished scholar that — 

" There is liltle doubt that the instrument of communication, 
will receive great improvements ; that the ivritien, and spoken lan- 
guage will acquire new force, and power ; possibly that forms of 
addi^ess, wholly new, will be struck out to meet the universal demand 
for new energy." 

The author of the Rational System of English Grammar proposes 
no change in the language itself. He proposes a revolution in the 
means by which a knowledge of its laws is acquired. 

But it may be said by many, that the old theory has so long 
enjoyed the approbation of the learned, that it must be a complete, 
and accurate expression of the grammatical genius of the English 



PREFACE. .. V 

language. To those who deduce the perfection of the old theory, 
from the duration of its existence, it may be replied that the arts, 
and sciences have ever been slow in their progress, and been 
brought to their present condition hj the accumulated efforts of 
different countries, and successive generations. Even the com- 
mon mechanic arts, upon which the concurrent experience of all 
men in every nation, has been constantly acting, have attained to 
comparative excellence only. Great, therefore, as have been the 
successive efforts of the British grammarians : and much as they 
deserve approbation for what they have accomplished, the history 
of the arts, and sciences, in general, and the difficulties of gram- 
matical investigation, in particular, forbid the belief that the old 
theory of English Grammar, has yet attained to those powers of 
development, necessary to a full , true, and clear expression of the 
grammatical principles of our language. 

Nor, while the author of this Class Book of Criticism has 
uniformly rendered that respect to the British English gramma- 
rians, to which they are so justly entitled from all, has he been 
surprised to find their whole theory groaning under the disease of 
error. This disease has been too general to excite any sudden 
emotion from novelty — it has always been the prevailing epidemic 
among new theories, plans, and institutions — and, while a few have 
escaped its attack, the majority has fallen victims to its rage, and 
been cut down, as by a quick, or slow consumption. In confirma- 
tion of this, see theory after theory falling like men in battle — 
mark the means employed to save them from the state of protracted 
sleep. — The dignity of their origin is pleaded — the few services 
they have rendered, are urged — the inconvenience of change, is 
exaggerated — error is attempted to be beautified — innovation is 
belied, and presented in all the terrors of disorder, dilaceration, 
and ruin — and the innovator himself is held up as a pest to society 
— an enemy to truth, as some refractory spirit seeking distinction 
in the ruin of those noble fabrics which have been finished by 
genius, adorned with learning, tried by time, and long admired by 
the world. But history shows that all these life-saving resorts are 
vain.— The existence of error cannot be protracted beyond the dis- 
covery of truth ! Whenever error can be clearly exposed, and 
truth fairly made out, the sea of life, which rocks under the jarring 
interests, and views of men, will rise in anger, and will swallow 
up that compass, be it constructed by whom it may, which has 
been unfaithful to the mariner, in his voyage for science, art, or 
fame. 

The present popular theory of English Grammar is a compilation 
by Mr. L. Murray. £ 

Mr. Murray was an American — he was born, and educated in the 
United States, His work, however, is a collection of the writ- 

1* 



yi PREFACE. 

ten opinions, and views of the English literati. The author com- 
piled his Grammar after he became a member of the English com- 
munity — he designed it as a system of Definitions, Bules and Re- 
marks, for the presentation of the structure of the English lan- 
guage — the work therefore, is, in eyery sense of the word, an Eng- 
lish production. But is it the worse for its national character 1 
No ! Nor is it considered so in the present attack upon it. Eng- 
land is our mother — and, although while in her family, and under 
her protection, we received nothing from her hands but persecution 
in all its forms ; yet while we would receive her literary gifts with 
the affection of children ; we would treat them with the minds of 
men. 

The ties between England, and America, are amity, and affec- 
tion. These national ligatures can never be strengthened by obla- 
tions upon the altar of science, for the sins of the parent upon the 
heads of the children. Freedom is the source whence these cords 
have sprung ; and Independence is the power which must con- 
tinue their tension. Political independence hath given us wings— 
and literary freedom must enable us to soar to fame. Does Eng- 
land say that this work is an attack upon her 1 the author denies 
the charge ; it is an attack upon her erroneous opinions with an 
application to her best judgment to renounce them. Nor is the 
attack intended for her any farther than she is disposed to render 
it subservient to her interest. If she thinks proper to approve, 
well. But, if she undertakes to repel this attack, she is arrayed 
against truth which is no sooner known, than it finds advocates 
in every land, and clime ! Truth has never suffered for a want of 
advocates. It sometimes lies long concealed under methodical, and 
pampered error. But, as this loathsome garb is torn off, and truth 
exhibited in its native beauty, and form, it is led forth by its nu- 
merous friends, and made to strengthen the mind, to adorn art, and 
science, and to beautify nature herself. 

Nor does truth ever become so degraded by the comparative 
value of the system, art, or science in which it may be found, that 
it falls below the favorable notice, and ready patronage of the 
wisest, and best man. True, individuals may be found, who say, 
" O, the old theory answers all practical purposes — and farther 
than this, we are indifferent." 

But this is not the general sentiment of the human race. The 
erroneous theory of astronomy was sufficient to answer all " prac- 
tical purposes" — yet because this theory shut out the truth, it 
was exploded, and the true one adopted. It was a love of truth, 
which induced men to reject the old astronomical theory, and to 
receive the new, and true one. For surely, those master spirits 
who arrayed themselves against error, neither expected, by the 
introduction of the true system, to enrich the soil of the earth, 



PREFACE, Vll 

nor to bring more brilliant, and lasting light from the heavens. 
$0— it was the lustre of truth, which attracted their attention — it 
was- the brilliancy of this diamond, which enlisted these soldiers of 
science in the war of innovation. And it was not until the termi- 
nation of this war, that the splendour of creation was known, or 
the greatness of its Maker seen. 

Man is so constituted that truth renders him happy, while error 
makes him miserable. Truth has an effect upon the mind as much 
as fire upon the fleshy or food upon the palate. The criminal is 
made happy, or miserable, by truth. If truth fixes the crime, the 
culprit is condemned, though acquitted j but, if falsehood fixes it ? 
he is acquitted, although condemned. 

If a theory is founded in truth, no higher recommendation is ne- 
cessary—indeed it would be an insult upon the nature, and dignity 
of man, to attempt any stronger, or higher encomium. 

If a man rejects truth upon the ground that error may answer 
all practical purposes, he forms an exception— -he falls below the 
dignity of his species. The man who says that error will answer 
as well as truth, might also say that vice will answer as well as vir- 
tue, that a falsehood is as commendable as the truth / in short, 
that sin is as worthy as holiness itself. 

Truth even in the abstract, has claims upon man for his appro- 
bation — and man from his very nature, rejoices in paying the de- 
mand. 

The author has proceeded thus far upon the ground that an erro- 
neous theory will answer all practical purposes* But he now de- 
nies the correctness of the position ; and he pities them who have 
the weakness to take it. Was this position reversed, they who 
take it would appear more gracious — for Essays may answer in 
theory, which are by no means competent in practice. The British 
theory of English Gramrnar^inay answer all the purposes of theory 
— but, it cannot answer even half of the purposes of practice. The 
purposes of a grammar in practice, are the just solution, and proper 
use of the language whose grammar it professes to teach. These 
purposes are not answered by the old English Grammar, which in 
the course of this work, will be clearly demonstrated. And it is 
upon this firm ground that the present petition is made to the Ame- 
rican people to abandon that theory for one, conceived in truth^ 
born of the English language, dressed in simplicity, skilful, and 
strong even to all the pretended eccentricities, anomalies, and idioms 
with which our language is said to abound. 

But the petitioner does not even hope to escape opposition — he 
craves investigation— he trembles not under the dread of defeat 
—truth against error, is omnipotent. 

The author of the Rational System of English Grammar, is not 
insensible that even the American people will listen to his peti- 



Vill PREFACE* 

tion with a jealous diffidence. They will revert with logical cau- 
tion to the numerous attempts to improve the voluminous compila- 
tions of the worthy Mr* Murray, upon this science. The stubborn 
animosity of those who have been disappointed in Goold Brown : the 
virulence of them that have not realized their high expectations in 
Bullions ; and the execrations of the many, who say Murray is the 
very acme of grammatical excellence, will entrench themselves 
against the prosperity of this undertaking. Nor will the opposing 
force stop here ; some of the many who have devoted so much time 
to the study of this science, by the old plan, will, from mere pride 
of opinion, exert their influence to retard the march of this improve- 
ment. The last class of anti-improvers, may be known by the 
argument which they adopt. They tell the community that it is 
not possible that so learned a man as Mr. Murray, should so far 
overlook the genius of our language, that he can form an erroneous 
system for the development of its principles. They even convert 
the worth, and elevated standing of the man into a kind of arch 
which they throw over his works to defend them from the pressure 
of criticism. This arch I greatly admire ; and I would even plead 
the dignity of its materials as a superinducement for my attack 
upon its tenets. When a country so idolizes its great men that it 
trembles at an appeal from their erroneous decisions, the avenues 
to improvement are closed, — national reputation sickens, — the 
expiring rattle is heard in the larynx of genius, — and the cold 
sweat of death covers the public body. 

A Bepublic must advance, or it must retrograde. This is 
emphatically true with the American community. The rapid in- 
crease of its population, brings along with it new views, new inter- 
ests, new jealousies, and new ambition. Politics have become the 
highway to fame, and the broad road to destruction. The crowds 
that enter, seem resolved on distinction, and power. Every act 
which seems important to self-aggrandizement, must be pushed into 
being ; and every chief magistrate whose reign appears hurtful to 
the opposite party, must be hurled from his seat by the constitution 
of the Union. 

All the leading politicians have fixed their eyes upon some ex- 
alted posts — and to attain to these, they rely upon the various 
views which may be taken of this glorious instrument — an instru- 
ment which would be sufficient to guide a Washington ; but 
which is altogether incompetent to control one bent upon power, — 
and dominion. 

This Bepublic is not to be saved from the attacks of ambition, 
by a Junius brandishing the crimson steel. The guardian power 
of America, must be sought for in her constitution. This is the 
ark in which her liberties,— her rights, — her very vitals are 
deposited. 



PREFACE. IX 

The defects in the construction of this ark, have already served 
the purposes of political partizans who will always be dangerous to 
American liberty in proportion to the philological defectiveness of 
that sacred depository in which it has been placed by those whose 
lives were devoted to procure it, and whose spirits are invoked to 
preserve it. 

Too little attention is paid to the means employed in teaching 
children. Youth is the progressive state of both mind and body ; 
and, if either is neglected here, it never attains to that height in 
excellence to which our species is capable of ascending. The 
proper nourishment for both, while in this state, is logical, and 
liberal action, — and, in exact proportion to the use of this, will be 
the strength of the body, and the capability of the soul. 

The subject of truth, and definition is generally kept out of our 
Seminaries of learning — hence it is, that lax phraseology, unmean- 
ing description, and obscure expression pervade, and deform the 
works of our great men. 

A knowledge of the science of thought, is the only information 
which can render a man fully competent to discharge the various 
duties which devolve upon him in the journey of life. As as- 
tronomy does not respect the relation of ideas in general, a know- 
ledge of this science cannot render the mind skilful in other 
things. A man's knowledge of the relations of the celestial bodies 
which roll in the firmament upon GocPs will as their axle, does not 
give so much capability to acquire other sciences, as does his 
knowledge of the more celestial bodies which revolve in constella- 
tions in the mind, round God as their centre ! 

As language is the great medium through which the student 
gains access to art, and science, he should endeavour to make him- 
self perfectly acquainted with this medium as soon as his age will 
enable him to study it. And, as language is nothing but thought 
embodied in tabernacles of sound, and literal characters, the 
student must here study the science of thooght, or remain ignorant 
of language. Language is the only thing in which thought is pre- 
sented as a science. And, although it is said again, and again, 
that the pupil may attain to the philosophy of language after he 
shall have acquired the grammar of it, yet it is a truth which can- 
not be controverted, that the philosophy, and the grammar of 
a language, are the same thing. 

I do not intend to say that the jargon which is presented by 
Murray, Goold Brown, Bullions, &c. &c. as English grammar is 
the philosophy of the English language. But I mean to say that 
English grammar is the constructive philosophy of the English 
language. 

JN'o, no, — I should not like to impose upon myself the task of 
showing that the silly rules, ridiculous notes, and nickname defi- 



X PREFACE. 

nitions which disgrace their authors, and harm their students, are 
the philosophy of the English language ! 

The following definition of person is given by a reeent mender of 
Murray— 

" Person, in grammar, is the relation of a noun or pronoun to 
what is said in discourse. 5 ' 

" There are three persons, jfirsf, second, and third. The first 
person denotes the speaker, or writer ; — as / Paul have written it. 
The second person denotes the person addressed • — as Thou, God, 
vseest me ; — the third person denotes the person or thing spoken 
of; as, Truth is mighty." — P. Bullion's English Grammar. 

New, as person is relation, the first person is the first relation. 
The second person is the second relation — and the third person is 
the third relation ! ! The practical philosophy of the thing, then, 
is this — 

The first relation denotes the speaker, or writer ; as I Paul have 
written it ! Is the speaker denoted here by a relation ? Is he 
not denoted by the word Paul ! ? Is this proper noun a relation ? 

The second relation denotes the person addressed ; as, " Thou, 
God, seest me !" 

The third relation denotes the person, or thing spoken of; as, 
Truth is mighty ! 

Is it not remarkably singular that a man who defines person to 
be a relation, and thus compels himself to say in the application of 
this false doctrine, that the speaker is denoted by a relation, should 
know anything of truth? " Truth is mighty." 

But it is mighty in the hands of those only, who love it. The 
man who can employ the word, truth, in illustration .of the gross 
error which precedes, would be likely to treat truth as hag-horn I 

But truth is mighty in every thing in which it is found — and, 
upon every thing to which it is applied. Truth in science acts as 
compost upon the mind of the student — truth in science draws out 
the affections of the student for the study of the science — truth in 
science falls upon the mind of the student like the dew-drop upon 
the grass. But that theory from which liquid error is constantly 
drizzling into the mind of the student, renders the brain dropsical^ 
and consequently, the whole mind feeble. 

Youth is the season allotted by nature to the exercise, and ex- 
pansion of the soul — -but man, lazy man has contradicted this, and 
thus brought himself to a state so feeble that he can hardly pro- 
tect his rights, hardly enjoy his freedom. Even the Constitution 
of the United States, although drawn up by the united talents of 
profound men, cannot be understood by any two impartial states- 
men in the same way. The Senate cannot ascertain by this 
instrument, whether the Vice-President should control the sena- 
torial body, or whether this body should control him ! Thou- 



PREFACE. XI 

sands have already been expended to determine this point from 
the language of the constitution, without the least success. 

As great a scholar, and as profound a statesman as has ever 
presided over this nation, understands the constitution of the 
Union to give the President power to send certain ministers, and 
other officers, from this, to foreign countries, without the consent 
of the Senate. But a Senate in no respect inferior to any which 
has ever adorned this Republic, understands this same instrument 
to require him to consult the Senate upon the subject of all foreign 
missions. Thus the same instrument is made to sustain conflicting 
measures whenever it pleases the contending parties to sanction 
deeds which are favourable to themselves. 

In the United States, the people are divided into two parties 
upon the constitutionality of a national bank. Yes, ever since the 
government of these States has had an existence, one party has 
averred that the constitution sanctions a national bank, while the 
other has as long averred that it interdicts every thing of the kind. 
Thus, while the affirmative party has been erecting a national 
bank with this instrument, the negative one has been demolishing 
it with the same means ! 

The author of this Class Book has ever been disposed to ascribe 
these individual, and national misfortunes to a want of skill in 
language. These sparrings which tax a nation's wealth, these 
concussions in the political elements, which carry horror in their 
vibrations, these eddies which sometimes whirl in amazement, nation 
after nation, these adverse winds which give being, and energy to 
faction, are the storms which ambition directs by riding upon the 
clouds of the constitution. It is in these clouds that ambition 
lurks — it is from these that the thunder of eloquence will burst — 
it is from these, that the lightning of genius will play, first to the 
consternation, then to the destruction of our political Eden. 

He that has attended with common observation to what passes 
daily in society in general, has found that most of the difficulties 
which distract neighbourhoods, and array even brother against 
brother, and carry both before a judge, and jury, arise from a 
want of clearly defining the conditions of their contracts. It be- 
comes every man, therefore, to understand the language of his 
own country — he should consider it as an instrument employed in 
the transaction of business — as a means us>ed for the preservation 
of peace, — as a high qualification in social hours, — and an invalu- 
able blessing through life. 

Is it too late to begin a reform ? If not, let it be commenced 
in our primary schools — let our language be understood by the 
teacher, and by him let it be taught to the pupil — let the absurd, 
parrot-like mode of teaching it be ridiculed out of use, and out 



XII PREFACE. 

of being— let children learn to think-— -and let parents employ the 
teachers who will enable their children to think. 

Let the institutions in which our youth complete their educa- 
tion , give attention to our own language— too much time is devoted 
to the dead languages. 

American statesmen must be acquainted with their own lan- 
guage, or this Republic is of short duration. 

This Republic came into being by political re volution— and it 
must attain to its destined rank, and sway by literary innovation. 

The greatest freedom to which a nation can aspire is complete 
emancipation from literary thraldom- — few nations, however, arrive 
at this commanding eminence. Rome once possessed it; and she 
was the glory, and admiration of the world. 

In- times of innovation, however, every caution should be enli- 
vened with fear — yet attempered with reason. The enraged 
genius of one individual has sometimes drawn whole nations from 
the bosom of their laws, and from the inmost recesses of their 
salutary habits. But injury has rarely resulted from the feats of 
genius directed to the improvement of art, or science. Even 
where the primary object is not accomplished, good often results 
from the exertions of the disappointed. Was the philosopher's 
stone discovered — was the elixir of life procured 1 No, but the 
search after them, prepared the way for discoveries of great 
importance to the human race. And, although the great minds 
that pursued fche&e objects, did enlarge the circle of science, 
they were severely punished with sneers, ridicule, and per- 
secution ! 

Attempts to improve the arts, and sciences rarely escape the 
consequences inflicted by virulence, prejudice, and ambition. The 
race of genius has generally been converted into detestable war, 
and the ground of improvement turned into a field of battle. And 
while the bones of some have remained bleaching as a memento to 
the folly, and cruelty of man, the fate of others has been long, 
and dismal incarceration. Rut in modern days, few are immured 
within the gloomy walls of the criminal's prison : innovators, in- 
venters, and improvers, the distinguished benefactors of the human 
race, are now subjected to torture on the rack of the public 
press ! 

And a thousand minor means are always employed to aid in the 
chastisement of the greatly useful men, as well as in the misrepre- 
sentation of the most salutary measures. He whose reflections 
have never been sufficient to undeceive his own mind, has not un- 
frequently prated to the temporary detriment of real improvement. 
The fop in literature, and the coxcomb in science, have misled 
the credulous, and ignorant"; who, for a while, have withheld 
their support from important discoveries. And the envious, who 



PREFACE. Xlll 

pines under the success of another, has too often convened all 
his malign passions, held a caucus with himself to devise means 
for defeat, and disgrace. 

When did ENVY" emit her infuriated flame, and wrap the invalu- 
able Linnaeus in a fiery sheet of slander \ It was when reason, 
as though endowed with religion, was patient — it was when the 
genius, and industry of Linnaeus produced that botanical system 
which adorns the present age — it was when the former theories 
upon this science were converted into fortifications to save their 
votaries, and defeat the march of truth. 

Where are those who ridiculed a Newton for years ? Disap- 
pointment is their historian ; and shame is the theme of his pen. 
And, while the services of our own Clinton, couple him with the 
great of other times, the connection has been confirmed by the 
sanction of similar persecutions. The tongues, of prejudice, which 
his CANAL enterprise raised, hold a numeral competition with 
the particles of earth, thrown out in the excavation. But while 
the shame of thousands is seen blushing through the waters of the 
Western canal, the praise of its projector is heard rippling under 
its boats.— And as long as the note of merit is sweet to any, 
America will be charmed by the music of the voice which utters 
the name of Clinton. 

The Rational System of English Grammar presents a new scene 
to the minds of men ; and the grand problem is, whether it de- 
serves their fostering care, or their frowns, and reprehensions. 

Perhaps there is no middle point upon which men can place this 
undertaking — they can hardly justify a neutral ground. And it 
comes to this nation with increased claim to attention, as America 
is now the great theatre of glorious enterprise, and useful 
discovery. 

What it may be inquired is this Rational system ? It is a plan 
of instruction calculated to rouse the mind of the pupil, and to 
employ his perceptive powers. It is a system of grammar calcu- 
lated to shorten the distance from youth to manhood by acceler- 
ating the progress of the mind. The Rational Grammar is a 
system of teaching, which smooths the rugged road to knowledge, 
over which the old vehicle has for ages rumbled. It is a system 
obviously differing from all others : it is a species of innovation 
which must meet, and withstand the usual opposition. The 
work of innovation is a Herculean task : it is an enterprise, opposed 
by the pride of some, the virulence of others, and the habits of all. 
Few, however, are so bewildered by pride of opinion, that, sooner 
or later, they do not yield their assent to the introduction of real 
improvement. But there always will be some, who, led captive, 
by prejudice, will exert their utmost strength to oppose the tide 
of improvement. In the variegated machinery of human compacts, 



XIV PREFACE. 

however, these are by no means, useless — yet, while the author 
of the Class Book of Criticism considers them important id the 
race of improvement, he pities their condition, and rejoices that 
it is not his own. 

The Americans, as a people, though various in descent, are am 
in purpose. And it is by this unique character, that the influence 
of a difference in pedigree, is met, and subdued. It is not birth ; 
nor is it residence, but coincidence in views, and purpose, which 
makes one an American. And he, and he alone, is an American, 
born here, or elsewhere, whether of Irish, or German descent, 
whose conduct accords with the spirit of American laws, who.-e 
eye is upon our constitution, as the ark in which his liberty is 
deposited, — and who couples, with his own promotion, the advance- 
ment of the nation. And it is to the Americans that the enterprise 
of introducing this system is addressed. It is to a people, liberal, 
according to their means, beyond any other ; it is to a people, 
willing, beyond any other, to try all things, xind hold fast that 
which is good — it is to a people needy, from the nature of their 
government, beyond any other, of general, early, and correct in- 
formation. In a country like this, where equal rights are the life 
of the government, and general intelligence the lungs through 
which she respires, the means of education rise in importance 
above almost every other topic of national, or individual reflection. 
Let America, then, not tremble at innovation — let her continue 
to use the burnisher of genius till the glitter of the spires, ascend- 
ing from her Temples of science shall throw their light into the 
universities of even her mother. 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



Nothing so effectually prevents improvement as a belief of 
present perfection. It is observed by Mr. Murray, that little im- 
provement in English grammar can be expected at so late a period. 
This gentleman may have exhausted the source whence he has de- 
rived his extensive compilations ; but it does not follow that he 
has exhausted the principles of this science. Mr. Murray's Gram- 
mar is neither in accordance with sound sense, nor with the princi- 
ples of our language — and to sustain this position, the author of 
the Rational Grammar, has published the Glass Book of Criticism, 
which makes a full exposure of the defects, errors and contradic- 
tions, which pervade not only Mr. Murray's, but every other system 
that is founded upon the British principles of English grammar. 

Years since, the author of this work began those investigations 
in English Philology, which have resulted in the Rational Sys- 
tem. He commenced by forming a new nomenclature, which, in 
his / opinion, is not absolutely necessary to a clear, and satisfactory 
development of the Grammar of our language. About this time he 
printed his first work, which makes but two parts of speech: name- 
ly, PuiMARy, and Secondary. 

1. The Primary is a word which is constructively independent ; 
as, man', book. 

2. The Secondary is a word which is constructively dependent; 
as, *< a good man walks uprightly in all his ways." 

Since the time of the author's first publication, he has printed 
several works upon this science : these have been robbed by the 
herd of simplijiers, and made the foundation of those overgrown 
pretensions which have disgusted the people, and disgraced their 
modest authors. It is unnecessary to enumerate the names of the 
whole family of these plagiarists ; yet, out of compliment to those 
who have recommended the author's works by a liberal and free use 
of their principles, it seems a duty to mention a Greenleaf, an In- 
gersoll, a Car dell, a Kirkham, and a Gould Brown ! That these 
writers are dishonest authors, the different works published by the 
author of the Rational Grammar, most clearly demonstrate ; and 
that they are unsuccessful ones, time, which must give a faithful 
account of their fate, will, not far hence, place beyond dispute. 

It is generally thought by those who have merely heard of the 

xv 



XVI ADVERTISEMENT, 

philological works of John Horne Tooke, that this distinguished 
politician has given in his "Diversions of Purley," a system 
of English Grammar ; and that this system makes but two parts 
of speech. But he has attempted to form no System of Grammar 
— nor does he there say how many parts of speech there are in any 
language ! He does assert, however, that all the Conjunc- 
tions, Prepositions, &c, in our language, have been derived frtfrn 
nouns, or verbs. But he does not even intimate that the words 
derived from this source, should now be considered, and called 
nouns, and verbs ! Perhaps no one but Mr. Cardell has ever 
attempted to class, and name words according to their source of 
derivation — a principle which would include detract, and detrac- 
tion in the same class J thus making detraction a verb ! 

The Rational System is so far from a departure from the princi- 
ples upon which the author's first attempts were made, that it is 
a very close conformity to them. Of the works which the author's 
inceptive stages of investigation produced, the gentlemen whose 
names are here presented, spake in quite flattering terms — and, 
although the author does pot rest the introduction of the Rational 
System upon the authority of great names ; yet, as philosophers 
and moralists, theologians, and politicians have resorted to the 
opinions, and concurrent testimony of distinguished individuals to 
obtain a sanction for their doctrines, and systems, he deems it 
proper to present to the public the opinions which eminent scholars 
and teachers have expressed of his work : 

His Excellency, Be Witt Clinton ; E. Nott, President of Union 
College ; Be v. John Findlay, A. M., Baltimore ; Be v. Samuel 
Blatchford, Lansingburg ; Prof. Yates, Union College ; Bev. John 
Chester, Albany ; Bev. C. G. Somers, New- York ; W. A. Tweed 
Bale, Principal of the Lancasterian School, Albany ; Bev. P. H. 
Barnes, Classical Teacher, New York ; C. Schseffer, Pastor of 
Christ Church, New York ; Bev. Solomon Brown, Principal of the 
Classical and Belles Lettres Academy, New York ; Bev. D. Park- 
er, A. M., Principal of Broad Street Academy, New York ; Caro- 
line M. Thayer, Preceptress of Philomethean Academy, N. York ; 
Charles Spaulding, Principal of Union Academy, New Brunswick, 
N. J. ; L. S. Lownsbury, Principal of Village Academy, N. York ; 
C. K. Gardner, A. M., Washington City ; Bichard R. Fenner, 
teacher, James Gould, teacher, Mr. Stewart, teacher, Balti- 
more ; Rev. Thomas Wheat, Principal of the Academy appended 
to St. Paul's Church, Alexandria ; Benjamin Hallowell, Prin- 
cipal of the Alexandria Classical, and Mathematical Board- 
ing School ; John-B. Pierpont, Mechanic's Hall Academy, Alex- 
andria; Mr. Allison, A.M., Classical Teacher, Alexandria; 
Samuel Bouglas, Esq., Harrisburg ; Br. A. T. Dean, Harrisburg ; 
Roberts Vaux, C. J. Ingersoll, W. M. Meredith, D. P. Brown, Dr, 



ADVERTISEMENT. XV11 

A. Com'stock, Thomas A. Taylor, Mr. Slack, Mr. Goodfellow, Da- 
vid Maclure, Thomas M. Baser, E. Fouse, S. H. Wilson, Phila- 
delphia ; John M' Allison, Alexandria ; Thomas J. Harris, Cham- 
bersburg ; N. R. Smith, John N. M'Nivins, Pittsburg ; S. I. An- 
derson, Lieut. U. S. Army, Benjamin F. Reeve, Minerva, Ken- 
tucky ; James H. Holton, Germantown, Kentucky ; John Erhart, 
Newport, Rhode Island. 

N. B. The opinions of these gentlemen may be found at the 
close of the work. 



The following are the names of those who recommend the Ra- 
tional System at the present time : 

Reverend Jacob H. Nickels, Philadelphia ; Wm. Roberts, Prin- 
cipal of the Ringgold Grammar School ; Wm. D. Young, G. Ge- 
rard, Professor of Languages, Philadelphia ; J. Wilson Wallace, 
Philadelphia ; C. J. Ingersoll, Philadelphia ; John Ludlow, L.L.D. 
President of the University, Philadelphia ; B. F. Manire, Smith- 
ville, Miss.; P. A. Browne, L.L.D., Philadelphia ; Dr. A. T. W. 
Wright, Principal of the Philadelphia Normal School ; G. W. 
Biddle, Philadelphia ; Thomas S, Smith, Philadelphia ; John D. 
Blight, Philadelphia ; Nicholas H. Maguire, Principal of the 
Coates' Street Grammar School ; L. Bedford, Principal of the Fe- 
male Harrison Grammar School 5 John Joyce, Principal of the 
Reed Street Grammar School ; A. B. Ivins, Principal of the 
North West Grammar School ; James B. Beers, Philadelphia ; 
John M. Coleman, former Principal of the New Market Grammar 
School ; P. A. Gregar, Principal of the South East Grammar 
School ; Mrs. M. Whiteside, Philadelphia ; Godey's Lady's Book, 
Philadelphia ; Reverend W. E. G. Agnew, Principal of the Young 
Ladies' Boarding School, Seventh near Arch street j Reverend 
Otis A. Skinner, Chairman of the Committee on the Franklin 
Grammar School, Boston ; Professor James P. Espy, : Washington 
City ; S. W. Crawford, L.L.D., Principal of the Academy connected 
with the Pennsylvania University; J. B. Burleigh, L.L.D. , Balti- 
more; John Sanderson, late Professor of Languages in the Philadel- 
phia High School ; Reverend John Findlay, Baltimore ; Henry 
M'Cullough, Tenn.; Benjamin M'Connell, Tenn.; E. Bennett, 
Principal of the Academy in the basement story of the Third Pres- 
byterian Church, North Eutaw Street, Baltimore; Hon. George 
Sharswood, Philadelphia ; A. C. Roy, Principal of the New 
Market Female Grammar School, Philadelphia. 

The following are the names of ten of the Professors in Mount 
St. Mary's Seminary, Emmettsburg, who recommend the Rational 
System — James Lynch, J. Butler, John H. M'Caffery, James 
Carny, Matthew Taylor, Barnard 0. Cavanagh, John M'Clasky, 
Edward Sourin, Edward Collins, Thomas Butler. 

2* 



Will ADVERTISEMENT. 

The Proceedings of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, in reference, to 

the Rational Grammar, being in the form of a recommendation , 

it may not- be amiss to insert them in this place. 

The fact is beyond doubt, that the subject of English Grammar 
has been in an unsettled state 5 from its commencement to the pre- 
sent period. And one of the many injurious results is that, schools 
are almost daily disturbed by the introduction of new . Grammars. 
The people of the United States, feeling the bad effects of this 
Course, must perceive that it proceeds from the great defects of the 
British system of English Grammar ; and they must also be satis- 
fied that nothing can arrest the progress of this evil, but the use 
of the true system ! The citizens of Harrisburg, feeling the in- 
convenience, and expense of this perpetual change in Grammars, 
and believing that it tends to retard the progress of youth in the 
study of this science, sent a petition to the Legislature of Penn- 
sylvania, praying that body to investigate this subject ; and to 
recommend a System of Grammar for the use of Schools. This 
petition, of course, was referred to the Committee on Education, 
who, after a deliberate investigation, recommended " The Ra- 
tional Grammar." 

The following is the report of the Committee, as published in the 
" Harrisburg Chronicle :" 

" The Committee on Education, to whom was referred the peti- 
tion of the citizens of Harrisburg, respecting the " RATIONAL 
GRAMMAR,"— Report :— 

" That they have had the subject under consideration, and after 
mature deliberation they are satisfied that the Rational Grammar 
is a work every way entitled to the patronage of an intelligent 
legislature. 

u The English is a language which has been derived from various 
sources— hence it was long believed, among the learned, that it 
contained too many irregularities in structure, to admit a system 
of rules, and definitions. This general impression prevented, for 
a long time^ any attempts at the formation of a Grammar for our 
language. At length, however, an attempt was made, and resulted 
in a mere translation of a Latin Grammar. This, of course, was 
found inapplicable to the true organization of the English lan- 
guage. Hence many attempts have been made to render the sys- 
tem, thus formed, more suitable to the singular structure of our 
vernacular tongue. But all these attempts have failed in a great 
degree, so that even at the present day the old theory but partially 
succeeds in reducing the grammar of the English language to a 
set of perfect rules, and definitions. But the Rational System 
does, in the opinion of the Committee, accomplish this object. 

" The Committee offer the following resolution : — 

" Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives, &c. 



ADVERTISEMENT. Six 

That the Secretary of the Commonwealth be, and he Is hereby 
authorized and required to subscribe, on the part of the Common- 
wealth, for so many copies of Brown's Grammar, as shall not 
exceed the amount of one thousand dollars!' 3 

The Hational Grammar, then, is recommended by this committee, 
as a system perfectly suited to the genius of our language— and so 
well were they satisfied of the importance of having it become the 
prevailing Grammar in their own State, that they subjoined to the 
recommendation of the work, a resolution authorizing the Secretary 
of State to purchase copies to the amount of One ThouSxIND Dol- 
lars for the encouragement of this system. 

The work has since been much improved 5 it is in this form 
presented to Teachers, and it is confidently believed that they 
will find it to settle the subject of English Grammar, both as to 
manner, and matter. 

The following, taken from the Carlisle Herald, will show the 
spirit of the proceedings of the Pennsylvania Legislature in rela- 
tion to " The Rational Grammar. 33 

The editor of that paper begins thus : — ■" Visit to Harrisburg. 
— « The editor was at Harrisburg part of the last two days of the 
session ef the Legislature, and witnessed the last proceedings of 
that body. 33 " There was a subject that excited considerable 
interest. Our readers will recollect that the Committee on Edu- 
cation reported a resolution in favor of < Brown's Rational English 
Grammar, 3 requiring the Secretary of the Commonwealth to pur- 
chase $1000 worth of this work. This resolution was taken up on 
the evening of the 23d. A great degree of interest evidently ex- 
isted in favour of Mr. Brown. And so bent on expressing their 
approbation of Mr. Brown's labours, were many in the house, that 
after the recess which the Legislature had, the following resolution 
was offered : 

" '-Resolved, That the Speaker be directed to draw his order on 
the State Treasurer for one hundred dollars, in favour of Mr. 
Brown, author of The Rational English Grammar, as a token 
of the estimation in which his services are held by this House. 3 33 



The following letters of commendation show the present state of 
the work : 

Philadelphia, January 10, 1854. 

My Dear Sir, — I have examined with great care both the First 
and Second Parts of your Rational Grammar. It is a subject to 
which I do not profess to have paid much attention. Your system 
appears to me, however, to be founded on philosophical principles. 
It exercises the mind of the pupil, not merely his memory. It 
teaches him the construction of a sentence as you would teach a 
child the construction of a machine, by taking it into parts, 



%% . ADVERTISEMENT. 

and showing him bow Ifaef are put together. The old rules 
of English Grammar are not calculated to give a clear understand- 
ing of the subject—in fact, they are derived^ in a great measure, 
from languages abounding in inflections. In the process of 
its advancement our tongue has thrown off those inflections, as 
has been the case with many other modern languages-— and, what- 
ever has been lost in harmony and fullness, much has been gained 
in simplicity* There is no reason, it seems to me, why we should 
still cling to cases and rules of concord, and government, which 
are no longer necessary — -and, indeed, only tend to confound. I 
am glad to find that your First Book has been received in th# 
Public Schools, and I hope that the Second will also. You have 
devoted yourself for so long a time, and with such a hearty enthu- 
siasm to the subject, that I hope you may be rewarded by seeing 
your works at last in general use. Your's very truly, 

GEO. SHAESv\OOD. 
James Brown, Esq* 



From S. W. Crawford, D. D., Principal of the Academy connected 
with the University of Pennsylvania. 

Philadelphia, January 6, 1854. 
I have examined the Second Book of Mr. Brown's Rational 
System op English Grammar, and agree in opinion, respecting 
the work, with P. A. Browne, P. A. Cregar, John Joyce, 
A. B. Ivins, Nicholas H. Maguire, Thomas S. Smith, George 
W. Biddle, Miss Bedford, Miss Boy, Geo. Sharswood, and 
James P. Espy. 

S. W. Crawford 



P Ml a delphia , 1 8 5 4 . 
I have given James Brown's English Grammar in Three Books, 
a careful examination ; and I consider it a work of great merit. 
The soundness of its principles, the clearness of its methods, and 
the accuracy of its definitions, and Bules, must recommend the 
system to every school in which English grammar is taught. 

As a means for the analysis of our language, I consider the 
system invaluable ; and, as an auxiliary in maturing the mind, it is 
not equalled by any thing of which I have a knowledge. Indeed, 
the three books constitute a new system that gives to grammar the 
charms of philosophy, and to the pupil, a love for its study 

A. B. Ivins, 
Principal of the North Western Grammar School, Philadelphia 



iHr* More letters at the end of the book. 



RECO M M K N DATI O 8 S . 31 

Philadelphia, Jan. 10, 18. r 4. 

Sjb, — As I am a teacher, I embrace all the opportunities whicl 
my avocation permits me to improve, to acquire a knowledge of 
every thing new in the ministry of education. And, although this 
practice places in my hands, many novelties that contain no im- 
provement on the old means of instruction, it puts into them a few 
new things which are far superior to the old. For instance — the 
English Grammar in Three Books, by James Brown, has an excel- 
lence which should secure the attention of all who are interested 
in the advancement of this science. 

Although Book I. treats of a part of grammatical science on 
which Mr. Murray, and his simplifiers are perfectly silent, the 
principles which it inculcates, seem to me, to be the very basis 
of English grammar. The teacher, however, who introduces this 
part of the new system, must use a new vocabulary. The new 
nomenclature seems absolutely necessary ; for, as the principles 
which this book teaches, are new, its novel technicals cannot be 
avoided by the use of the common terms. But as the technicals 
of Book I. are few, and expressive ; and, as they are actually ne- 
cessary to the acquisition of a knowledge which is an indispen- 
sable prerequisite to a thorough acquaintance with the grammar 
of the English language, no teacher who wishes to impart, and no 
pupil who desires to acquire, a critical knowledge of English gram- 
mar, will allow a few new technicals to prevent the gratification 
of their desires. 

Although Book II. is designed as a substitute for the theory 
now in use, it differs nearly as much from it as does Book L, 
which does not even attempt to inculcate any of the principles 
found in the old theory. In general, Book II. employs the old 
technicals ; yet, in principles, definitions, rules, and methods, it 
bears no analogy to that theory. But much ^s the principles of 
Book II. differ from those of the old theory, I am perfectly satis- 
fied that they are in exact accordance with the constructive phi- 
losophy of the English language. 

Book III. like Book I. is original, — both occupy new ground. 
While Book I., however, is an important help in the analysis of 
words, Book III. is a powerful auxiliary in the analysis of 
thoughts. And, as the three books constitute a system of English 
Grammar, infinitely better calculated to make youth masters of 
words and thoughts than the old theory, I trust that all who wish 
to advance the cause of education will do something for the im- 
mediate introduction of this system into our schools. 

P. A. Cregar, 
Principal of S. E. Grammar School, 



22 RECOMMENDATIONS. 

Philadelphia, Jan. 8, 1B5±. 

Sib, — I liave examined the English Grammar in Three Books, 
y James Brown ; and, although I think the new nomenclature 
which he used in a former production on the same subject, ex- 
pressive, and appropriate, I am much pleased to find that in this 
work he has restored the old technicals to their accustomed places. 

Although Book I. does not seem to be a substitute for any part 
of the old theory, it appears to me to be almost a sine qua non in 
the study of English grammar. The mere division of a sentence 
into monos, renders important aid in analyzing, punctuating, read- 
ing, and understanding it. True, the book has a few new terms ; 
but as they are all expressive of clearly defined principles, the 
child can soon master them. The volume is small, and appears 
highly important in the acquirement of a correct knowledge of the 
constructive principles of the language. 

I cannot here enumerate all the excellent things in this little 
book ; but, as the principles which it teaches, are all addressed to 
the judgment of the learner, he has nothing to memorize. 

In my opinion, there is no way by which a child can be made 
so thoroughly acquainted with the constructive philosophy of the 
English language as by the use of Brown's First Book. 

Book II. is designed as a substitute for the old theory of Eng- 
lish Grammar, but it is not a presentation of the same principle? 
which the old system teaches. 

The author retains all the essential technicals of the old Gram- 
mars; but he rejects all the definitions, and all the principles in 
these works as absurd, contradictory, and irrelevant. The book 
is replete with practical principles, and excellent rules, highly im- 
portant to all who use the English language. 

And in the words of the learned Dr. Wylie, late Vice-Provost of 
the University of Pennsylvania, I give it as my conviction, that 
Brown's System forms a new epoch in the history of English 
grammar, as important in our language as the steamboat in our 
waters ; that his system, duly appreciated, and introduced into 
our schools, would soon disenthral the grammar of our language 
from the shackles fixed upon it by the most celebrated gramma- 
rians, from the earliest period down to the present time. 

I also agree in opinion with the same gentleman, that Mr. Brown 
deserves public patronage as a public benefactor ; and for the good 
of youth, I sincerely hope that he will receive it. 

The Third Book is not a substitute for the old theory; it is 

^acle up of principles on which neither Murray, nor any of his 

. mplifiers, have written. The work is profound ; and, as it sheds 

aicfc light upon the philological character of the prepositions, it 

of great value to all who wish to become familiar with this 
- »'i*acter. 

John Joyce, 
Principal of the Reed Street Public Grammar School, 



23 RECOMMENDATIONS. 

[From Prof. C. D. Cleveland, formerly Professor of the Latin and the 
Greek Language in the Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pa., and of the 
Latin Language and Literature in the University of the city of New 
York, and at present, Principal of a Young Ladies School in Phila- 
delphia.'] 

Philadelphia, Nov. 22d, 1849. 
My Dear Sir : — You ask me my opinion of two books recently 
published by yourself, namely, Brown's " First" and his " Second 
Round in the Ladder of Education." 

I have examined these books with some care, and feeling, I trust, 
the responsibility of recommending any book which is to be put 
into the hands of the young, to shape their education, and, it may 
be, to influence their whole future life, I do not hesitate to give 
these books my cordial commendation ; for I believe that children 
carefully and faithfully instructed in them will gain clearer ideas, 
more distinct perceptions, and much more knowledge of the first 
principles of our language, than by the study of any other ele- 
mentary books with which I am acquainted. 

Yours for every improvement in the means of education, 

C. D. Cleveland. 



[The Opinion of the Rev. W. G. E. Agnew, Principal of the Youny 
Ladies Boarding School, Seventh, near Arch street.] 
I have examined the First, and the Second Round in the Lad- 
der or Education, in connection with the Hand-Nomascope and 
Alphascope, and pronounce the works decidedly the very best which 
I have ever seen for producing effect on the mind of the child. 

W. G. E. Agnew. 
Philadelphia, Sept. 6th, 1849. 



Philadelphia, Oct. 8th, 1849, 
I have carefully examined Brown's First Round in the Ladder 
of Education, with the Alphascope and Hand-Nomascope, and I 
feel compelled to say, with the Rev. Mr. Agnew, that the work is 
decidedly the very best which I have ever seen for producing effect 
on the mind of the child. John Joyce, 

Principal of the Peed street Public Grammar School 



Philadelphia, Oct. 8th, 1849. 
I have examined with care Brown's Second Round in the Lad- 
der of Education, and I am fully satisfied that it is in every re- 
spect infinitely superior to any other Spelling Book'; that it " should 
be studied by all adults who are deficient in the meaning of words, 
and that both Pounds should be used in all schools and families in 
which primary books are required." John Joyce, 

Principal of the Reed Street Public Grammar SchooL 



RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOOK SECOND. 

Although I have not examined the second Book of Mr. Brown's 
Rational system of English Grammar as thoroughly as 1 have the 
First, I am satisfied that Mr. Smith s opinion of it is just, and am 
perfectly willing to say that I concur in opinion with him, respect- 
ing the work. And in imitation of his course, I would ask whether 
we have not styled words which represent cats, dogs, and even inan- 
imate objects, personal pronouns long enough — whether we have not 
sufficiently long denominated the speech, the diction itself, a mere 
mode of the verb — whether we have not too long paid for teaching 
our children that there are three cases when in truth and simplicity 
there is not even one. 

I would ask also whether the hens possess the eggs, the boys pos- 
sess the hats, the baker, the bread, and whether the brewer actually 
posseses the yeast mentioned in the sentences — John carried Ste- 
phen's hens 1 eggs to market — John has boys' hats for sale, brewer's 
yeast is used in baker's bread !! 

I would ask likewise whether we have not already used the word 
case, in English long enough, whether we have not too long pars- 
ed the thing for the name of the thing — whether we have not too 
long called words which have no relation to verbs, adverbs — and 
whether we are still to be compelled by the use of the old theory to 
have our children taught that the verb which represents a perfectly 
finished event, is of the Imperfect tense ? I would ask too whether 
there is any propriety in continuing to learn that a verb is a word 
which signifies being, action or suffering', as, John ought to return, 
He resembles her, The timber wants strength and solidity, He can 
go, John has land in Ohio — whether there is any propriety in teach- 
ing that a noun is the name of any person, place or thing while the 
preposition, behind, is as much the name of a place as is any other word 
in the Language and while the adjective, red, is as much the name 
of something as is any other word, in short, whether there is a propri- 
ety in learning a definition of a noun which makes all words nouns. 

May I not venture to suggest that the enlightened gentlemen ap- 
pointed directors of our schools should no longer pay instructors for 
teaching our children a definition of the third person, which makes 
no difference between the third person, and a subject, finally may 
I not hope that they will introduce a Rational system of English 
Grammar into our Public schools which under their control have 
become the ornament, and attraction of Pennsylvania. 

GEORGE W. BIDDLE 

Philadelphia, January 6, 1854. 
I have not only read the second Book of Mr. Brown's Rational 
system of English Grammar, but 1 have taught from it ; and I feel 
confident that he substitutes simplicity for complexity, truth for error, 
and consistency for absurdity wherever he innovates upon the old 
theory. 

NICHOLAS H. MAGUIRE. 

Philadelphia, January 7, 1854. 
We are satisfied, that the Second Book, of Mr. Brown's Rational 
System of English Grammar, removes all the obscurities, absurdities 
and contradictions which pervade the common theory. 

LOUISA BEDFORD. 
A. CLAUDINE ROY. 



194 RECOMMENDATIONS OP BOOK SECOND. 

I have Examined the second Book of James Brown's rational 
system of English Grammar, and entertain the same opinion of it, 
that I do of the first. 

Those who acquire a knowledge of the popular theory, meet with 
many difficulties, when they endeavor to explain the construction of 
the most common sentences. These difficulties are felt by most 
scholars, if not by all. The conclusion seems to be inevitable that 
this theory is not merely imperfect but radically wrong-. If it did 
what it professes to do, these difficulties, would not arise. There 
would be no necessity for improved Grammars, to explain, and teach 
what Murray supposed he had clearly, explained and taught. Yet 
volume has been added to volume, and explanation to explanation, 
without making one scholar a better grammarian than he would 
have been from the study of Murray alone. Indeed, those who 
have derived their grammatical knowledge from Murray, are 
generally better informed on the subject than the students of hia 
successors. 

The difficulties referred to are sometimes, charged to the imper- 
fection of the language ; but it seems to me, that in these cases, the 
imperfection belongs to the understanding that makes the charge. 
The authors who have followed Murray attribute them, not to the 
falsity of the old theory, but to the defective Grammars, written to 
teach it; and they have composed new ones, in a vain effort to 
build up an efficient system upon a foundation of error. The result is 
that the subject is as much embarrassed as ever. But, in the con- 
fidence of vanity, some of these authors have presumed, not only 
that they could improve the radically erroneous Grammars of the 
language, but the language itself. They have introduced forms of 
speech, which distort the frame, and weaken the energy of our noble 
English. In terms which violate its simplicity, ignorance and 
affectation tell us, that a house is being built when there is no truth 
in the assertion, when the house, instead of being built, is only 
building. A proper knowledge of the language, and of its native 
modes of expression, would have saved it from the deformity of this 
and other modern innovations. 

Errors long continued become inveterate, and encourage the 
increase of abuses. The earliest moment for correcting them is the 
best To procrastinate is to decide that a future, and not the present 
generation, shall be benefitted by the truth. We have called fire, 
tongs, and shovels, persons long enough. We have long enough 
been taught that transitive verbs, and prepositions, govern nouns 
in the objective case ; as Joshua stopped the sun, — that of two or 
more things equally related, but one is the object of the relation ; as 
John stands by Robert, — that the actor is in the Nominative case, 
and that the object of the action, is in the objective case, which are 
strikingly illustrated in the nominative noun, house, and in the 
objective noun, Peter, in the sentence — the house was built by Peter. 

The theory of Mr. Brown's Grammar is calculated to correct the 
errors which have hitherto composed an inexplicable system — it is 
founded on the true constructive principles of our language — its 
adoption will lead to a better knowledge of those principles, and 
tend to prevent the corruptions to which the language is subjected 

TKOS. S. SMITH. 



26 RECOMMENDATIONS. 

Covington, Sep. 12, 1852, 

Mr. Brown, 

Dear Sir. — I hope these few lines will find you in good 
health, and spirits, and encouraged by a bright prospect of a wide 
circulation of your valuable books. 

According to promise, I did all in ray power, in the distribution 
of your circulars. I left one at each of the principal book stores 
in Baltimore, and Pittsburgh, the only places of note, at which I 
had time, and an opportunity to comply partially with your request. 
I say partially, because, as it was the time of vacation, I had no 
chance to see the teachers of the Public schools, but left a dozen 
circulars at the High school, Baltimore, for circulation. I had no 
opportunity to leave circulars at Cincinnati, nor Madison } but I 
disposed of some for circulation, equally advantageously, by send- 
ing them to Lexington, Kentucky, and to the central part of Ohio ; 
and the balance, a few, I intend to circulate, as thoroughly as I 
can, in the principal places in the West. 

I became acquainted on the boat, with a fine, well-meaning, and 
talented young man Hby the name of Mr. Samuel Tarver, with 
whom I spent many pleasant, and profitable hours. He resides 
at Denmark, Tennessee— has a fund of common sense, remarkable 
colloquial powers, speaks fluently, and with all the aptness, and 
precision, characteristic of a well-versed old school grammarian ; 
and, all in all, he is nearly " a man as is a man," and what 
is termed, without speaking ironically, " a nice young man." 

I spoke of your grammatical works, and loaned them to him to 
read. He gave them a cursory perusal, and seemed to appreciate, 
as by intuition, the soundness of your principles, and reasoning, 
and to see, at a glance, the sheer absurdity of the old theory. 
So pleased was he with the manner in which you treat the 
subject of grammar, that he offered me, as an inducement to 
sell, double price for each of your works : but my value of them 
was equal to his ; and I refused to dispose of them, saying 
that I would send to Philadelphia, and get a copy of each for 
him. He said he must have them, and that, as his father was 
acquainted with Lippincott, & Co., he would write to that firm 
to send them to him. I advised him to write to. you ; but told 
him that, if he wished, I supposed Lippincott could get them for 
him. 

I know it is one thing to have an idea, and another thing to 
put what we desire, into practical operation • still there is no 
harm to suggest it ; and it is this : As there are many persons 
who do not like to purchase books until they can examine 



RECOMMENDATIONS. 27 

them, I think it would be a good plan to leave a copy, or two of 
each of your works, at one, or two of the principal book-stores in 
each important place, in each State, or in those places in those 
States which you think best, advertising in the principal papers 
of each of the said places of said States, requesting all to give 
your works a satisfactory examination, before they purchase. By 
thus doing, as far, at least, as your means will justify, (and, by a 
gradual circulation, and sale, you might eventually get the means to 
accomplish the whole object,) I think you could facilitate the in- 
troduction of your works, with less expense, and trouble, and give 
them a more extensive circulation in a few months, than could 
otherwise, perhaps, be given to them in as many years. I may be 
too sanguine in my conjectures, but judge ye. 

I shall not go to Greencastle this fall, but stay at home, and 
review what I learned, and write down the notes I collected while 
under your tuition, that I may do justice to myself, and be pre- 
pared to speak critically, and fearlessly in defence of, and clear 
up, as far as I can, all objections to your new system of grammar. 
It is a shame that so useful a theory should lie buried in oblivion, 
for the want of voices to sound its well-deserved praise. 

I have done all I could ; and I will do all I can ; and if 

there is anything more that I can do for you, please write ; and 
I will do it with pleasure, for I feel that I have not half com- 
pensated you for the pains, and patience which you manifested, 
and the knowledge I received while under your instruction. 

As I have not yet reviewed what I learned, I am sure you will 
find many blunders in this composition ,* but I hope to be able, 
some time in the future, to show by my writing, the superiority 
of the Rational system over the old theory, and do my share for 
its honour, and salvation. 

I bid you for the present, a kind farewell : and I desire you 
to put confidence in thy word when I say that I believe that your 
work wants only to be known to be admired. 

Yours respectfully, 

Wm. D. YOUNG. 



NOTICE. 

Several years ago, I constructed a new system of English Grammar, 
which is published in three Books, under the title of an English Syntithology. 
Many who stand high both as teachers, and scholars, admit the excellence of 
the work by using it in their schools. While these approve of the system as 
it is, others do not feel warranted in using the new technicals in which the 
principles of the system, are expressed. These careful gentlemen seem to 
concede the legitimacy, appropriateness, and even advantages, of the new words 
employed in the work. But they say that the use of these new technicals, 
would keep their pupils ignorant of the usual medium through which men speak 
upon the subject of grammar. 

Th e work in which I have attempted to form a consistent English Grammar 
with the retention of the old names, is also, in three Books. 

After a careful examination of the old theory, I felt sure that teachers 
would be glad to substitute the true system for it. But on proposing this 
system for adoption, I found them as loath to leave their prison house of error 
as was the old inmate of the Bastile, his cell of darkness. Hence, although 
the old structure is utterly demolished, and its fragments strewed from the 
commencement to the end of my Class Book oe Criticism, thousands still 
sing peans in honour of Murray ! But, while I regret a want of success in 
my attempt to persuade the world to allow the old theory of English Gram- 
mar to decay, and drop out of the memory of men, I rejoice in the hope that 
1 may yet persuade the people to accept of a substitute which, though slightly 
marred by the use of noun, verb, &c, is formed upon the true grammatical 
principles of the English Language. 

While Book II. retains the common nomenclature in general, it rejects the old 
principles, and the old definitions, in full. In a work entitled, "A Class Book 
of Criticism, I have undertaken to demonstrate that the old theory of Eng- 
lish Grammar, is entirely wrong in principle, and utterly incompetent in tech- 
nicals. But, as the world does not yet seem ready to give these old technical 
servants a final discharge, I have retained them in Book II. I have not, 
however, been willing to keep any of the old principles. Indeed, the people 
appear ready now, to reject these with the definitions founded upon them. 

That the old school grammarians will fully comprehend the definitions given 
in Book II., is a point which I will not undertake to decide. ^ The mere ca- 
pacity to call words nouns, pronouns, articles, conjunctions &c, is not ability to 
understand a proposition in the form of a definition. Language has two dis- 
tinct, yet relative, characters ; and, unless an individual understands both 
well, he cannot comprehend either aright. In construction, a sentence is a 
mere table, a mere chair ; it is two, or more words so packed, that they form 
a complete bridge over which one mind can cross to another. But, in import, 
a sentence is an engine for transmitting thought ; and, the better one under- 
stands its beautiful mechanism, the more distinctly, easily, and forcibly he can 
transfer this mental fluid to others ; and the more clearly, and readily, can he 
see it as they pass it to him. 

That the rational system is better calculated to produce skill in the structure 
of speech, and in the chemistry of thought, than is the old theory of absurdities, 
which it attempts to displace, is the case that a jury of my country, is now 
empanneled to try — and may their verdict do justice to all without harm to any. 

(28) 



INTRODUCTION. 



As no stream can rise higher than its source, so no writer upon 
the subject of grammar can avoid showing, in the very construction 
of his periods, a qualification, or want of qualification, to form a 
Grammar for the language in which he writes his book. 

If he who attempts to form a guide to a certain science, violates 
the principles of the science in the construction of his guide, what 
confidence can be placed in his rule ? If they who have under- 
taken to improve the old British theory of English Grammar, as 
presented by L. Murray, have violated the very principles of 
English grammar, in almost every sentence which they have formed, 
what confidence can be placed in their overgrown pretensions ? 

And, as the author of a Grammar evinces, in the very construc- 
tion of his sentences, ability, or want of ability, to form a Gram- 
mar, so he who recommends the book, shows, in the construction 
of his periods, a qualification, or a want of qualification, to judge 
of its merits. 

Recommendations, as means for securing the sale, and adoption 
of a work, have lost much of their former efficacy. Whether the 
people have become better qualified to judge for themselves ; or 
whether they have been jaded out by constant eulogy upon the 
same subject, may be decided by the pertinacity with which gram- 
mar menders have pursued them for almost thirty years. That a 
desire for Grammar making has long been rampant in this country, 
is obvious from the countless number of books on the subject of 
Grammar mending. m 

For years it has been pretended by the many who wish to 
figure upon title pages, that Murray is in rags ! He has been 
almost the only subject of their compassion for a long time ! 
Grammar menders surround him in shoals. Some have darned his 
stockings,— some have new-heeled them,— others,^ new-toed them 1 
They have continued in this way forty years,— indeed, till they 
have made Murray a perfect show ! ! Every stitch which is taken 
in coat, or vest, hose, or pants, is submitted to all distinguished 
seamsters, far, and near. And in due time, and form, these come 
forward in praise of the masterly manner in which Murray has 
*»een mended ! ! He has been mended up so neatly, and 
thoroughly, by Mr. Greenleaf, by Mr. Kirkham by Mr. Ingersoll, 



xxix 



XXX INTRODUCTION. 

by Mr. Comly, or by the Rev. Dr. Somebody, that he is not only 
tidy enough to go into our common schools, and academies, but 
even into our colleges ! Thus Murray, in his patched habiliments, 
has been hawked from place to place, for years, under the various 
names of the numerous menders of his wardrobe ! In some in- 
stances, he is called Greenleaf, in some Kirkham, in some Goold 
Brown, and, within a few months, this learned, and meek old 
Quaker has appeared under the titular cognomen of the Reverend 
Doctor Bullions ! 

Conscious of an unwillingness in the people to give any more 
encouragement to Grammar mending, Mr. Bullions attempts to 
beguile them, in a few sweet-toned periods, to smile upon his book. 
And, was it not for the numerous interruptions produced by his 
grammatical obliquities, his warbling would equal that of the 
glades themselves. His manner, as exhibited in his Preface, is 
admirably well calculated to produce an assuagement of irritated 
feelings. Ulysses, and Orpheus did escape the music of the 
Sirens. — But there has been no Circe to forewarn our literati — 
hence, I believe, not one has passed the fatal coast alive ! But I 
feel it my duty to do to the unlettered, what Circe did to Ulysses. 
I shall attempt to caution them, not only against the bewitching 
notes of the author himself, but against all the sweet harmony 
which is made by the large choir that chants the merits of his 
patch-work. 

The following is the first sentence of the Preface : 

" A knowledge of English Grammar is very properly considered 
an indispensable part of an English education ; and is now taught, 
as such, in all our Academies and Common Schools." 

I shall speak of but one of the several errors which mar this 
sentence. 

1. What is very properly considered an indispensable part of 
an English education ? 

Knowledge. Very well. 

2. What is now taught, " as such," in all our Academies, and 
Common Schools % 

Knowledge I 

3. But knowledge is taugnt, as what % 

Knowledge is taught as an indispensable part of an English 
education ! 

4. John, do you attend school now ? 
« Yes, sir." 

5. What are you studying? 
" The English branches." 

6. Are you more fond of one branch than another ? 
" I think knowledge is a very interesting branch !" 



INTRODUCTION. X2TX1 

The Murray mender who speaks of teaching knowledge, deserves 
a patch, or two himself ! 

The learned author's sentence comprises thirty words. But the 
following, which expresses all that he intends, contains but nine- 
teen words ! 

English grammar is now taught in all our Academies, and 
Common Schools, as an indispensable branch of an English 
education. 

This sentence promises little support to the high reputation 
which the author's admirers have endeavoured to give him, and 
his work. But, although these gentlemen speak in an unusal 
strain of panegyric : yet their own periods are so often, and badly 
marred by gross solecisms, that their opinions will not only not 
induce the people to think highly of the Doctor, and his book, but 
will compel them to think less highly of his friends ! 

I cannot believe that Dr, Bullions is capable of using the 
English language with propriety — much less do I believe that he 
is capable of writing an English Grammar having the rare merits 
which these gentlemen have ascribed to his book. 

Mr. Bullions would be considered culpably ignorant of the 
English language even did he make no pretensions to skill in 
grammar. 

I find the following sentence in his English Grammar \ 

" These terms are generally derived from the Greek, or Latin, 
probably because these languages being now dead, and their words 
consequently not liable to change, are considered, for this reason, 
a better source than any other, for words of this description." 
(Page 202.) 

The section, for this reason, is nothing but a repetition of the 
long clause, " because these languages being now dead, and their 
words consequently, not liable to change" 

Where does Mr. Bullions find authority for the use of, « these 
languages ! ?" 

What languages are " these languages V> 

Why, the Latin, or the Greek ! ! ! I saw Stephen or John when 
they were returning from school ! ! ! 

Nor is this all. 

"Are considered a better source for words." 

Should we say source for, or source of ? 

I understand the source for this mischief ! Is this English ? 

This sentence is replete with errors — but I shall not attempt 
to expose any more of them. 

The sentence which stands in juxtaposition with this, reads as 
follows — 

" The convenience and utility of such terms, are universally 
acknowledged, and they are preferred to other equivalent terms 



XXXli INTRODUCTION 

in common use in the language, because having no other meaning 
nor use than what belongs to them as technical terms, whenever 
they are used, every person who understands the science knows 
precisely what is meant." 

I do not intend to exhaust the subject of error in this sentence. 
This is not the place for me to dilate upon the obliquities of those 
who are endeavouring to heal the external sores which are the 
ligitimate result of carious bones, and vitiated blood* Although 
I do not intend to do any thing with the spungy thought, and the 
rugged surface of this sentence ; yet I may be allowed to ask 
whence the authority for the use of nor, and than ! ? I saw no 
other man than John ! 

Does not every school-boy know that where than is properly 
used, it is placed after some word of the comparative degree ? 

1* il I who am less than the least of all saints." 

2. Is one man better by nature than another % 

3. Bullion's Grammar is worse than Goold Brown's. 

" Because having no other meaning nor use than what belongs 
to them as technicals !" 

Because having neither meaning, nor use except what belongs 
to them as technicals. 

Under page 114, Mr. Bullions has made a Rule to justify the 
use of than after other ! 

u Rule XXII. The comparative degree and the pronoun other 
require than after them ; as, Greater than 1 5 JSTo other than he." 

The part of this rule, which relates to than, has no basis in the 
genius of the English language. The instance, given by Mr. 
Bullions, in exemplification of this part of the rule, is not English. 

Grammar, says Mr. Bullions, is both a science and an art. 

" As an art, grammar teaches the right method of applying 
these principles to a particular language, so as thereby to express 
our thoughts in a correct, and proper, manner, according to esta- 
blished usage." 

This sentence is certainly a curiosity. Short as it is, it com- 
prises seventeen redundant words. The sentence has thirty-three 
words — and every idea which is expressed by the thirty-three, is 
expressed by the following sixteen : 

" As an art, it [grammar) teaches the right method of applying 
these principles to a particular language." 

u So as thereby to express our thoughts in a correct, and proper 
manner, according to established usage !" 

The verbal combination, the right method of applying these prin- 
ciples to language, exhausts the subject of accuracy. 

u So as thereby to express our thoughts in a correct and proper 
manner." 

What is gained by the use of proper 1 Do not correct \ and* 



INTRODUCTION. XXXH1 

proper mean the same thing ! ? And as grammar is cs fab! I shed 
asage with reference to language, what good results from the use 
of the verbal combination, " according to established usage 1" 

The sentence is substantially this — 

As an art, grammar teaches the right method of applying the 
principles of grammar to a particular language, so as thereby to 
express our thoughts in a correct and proper manner, according to 
the established principles of grammar ! ! 

I will now repeat the sentence, upon parts of which, I have 
already made a few reflections : 

" The convenience and utility of such terms are universally ac- 
knowledged, and they are preferred to other equivalent terms in 
common use in the language, because having no other meaning 
nor use than what belongs to them as technical terms, whenever 
they are used, every person who understands the science, knows 
precisely what is meant." (Fifty-four words.) 

Ten of the words which belong to this sentence, express ideas 
that have a direct connection with the first period in this chapter. 
The chapter is commenced with the following sentence. 



" GRAMMATICAL NOMENCLATURE." 

" Every science, and every art has its particular nomenclature, 
or vocabulary of technical terms, which are employed for the pur- 
pose of expressing technically its leading materials, facts, princi- 
ples, divisions, &c." (Twenty-nine words.) 

The legitimate commencement of this sentence, is made the in- 
ceptive part of the third period in the chapter : 

The convenience and utility of technical terms, are universally 
acknowledged : every science and every art has its particular 
nomenclature which is employed in expressing its leading materials, 
facts, principles, divisions, &c. (Twenty-nine words.) 

Having incorporated the ten words which have no connection 
with the third sentence, with the author's first period, it may be 
well to give his second sentence : 

2. " These terms are generally derived from the Greek or 
Latin, probably, because these languages being now dead, and; their 
words consequently not liable to change, are considered, for this 
reason, a better source than any other for words of this descrip- 
tion." (Forty-one words.) 

" These terms are generally derived from the Greek or Latin ; 
probably because the words of a dead language are less liable to 
change than those of a living one." (Twenty-nine words.) 

3. " And they are preferred to equivalent terms in common 
use, because, being- purely technical in meaning, every person who 
understands the science, understands them." (Twenty-four words 
— instead of Fifty-four.) 



SXxiv INTRODUCTION. 

Mr. Bullions says that technical terms are generally deriyed 
from the Greek, or Latin, because these languages are dead ! 

I cannot conceive that the death of a language, would induce 
any nation to make it the source of technical terms. Nor can I 
understand in what way the death of a language, can exert any 
influence over the mutability, or immutability of technicals. 

Under page 203, Mr. Bullions gives a fair specimen of his 
reasoning powers. 

" They (certain authors) are actually urging us to abandon such 
terms in grammar, as noun, pronoun, adjective, verb, &c, and to 
use in their stead, such words as name, substitute, describer, as- 
serter, and the like, because, as is alleged, they possess more of 
the character of English words,— that is, they propose to abandon 
the peculiar and appropriate technical terms of the science, and to 
employ words in a great measure disqualified for this purpose, by 
the very fact of their being already used for other purposes." 

Is substitute a more common word than subject ? Yet Mr. Bul- 
lions uses the word, subject, as a technical in grammar ! Under 
page 86, he says — 

" The subject is the thing chiefly spoken of. In English it is 
always the nominative to the verb. 55 

" The subject or nominative, the verb, and the object, may each 
be attended by other words, called adjuncts." 

And is not object a word in very common use 1 Is adjunct 
even generally employed as a technical ! ? 

Is article a word which is restricted to a technical use ! % Is 
there a word in the English language that is less technical than 
article ? 

Yet, under page 7, Mr. Bullions employs this as a technical 
word, which (to use his own language) is in a great measure dis- 
qualified for this purpose, by the very fact of its being already 
used for other purposes ! ! 

Have not the words, present, perfect, impeifect, future, indica- 
tive, potential, conjunction, &c. &c, been disqualified by the very 
fact tha.t they are used for other purposes ! % 

John is present. Is is a verb of the present tense ! Indeed, 
present cannot be applied to the tense of is, because it may be 
applied to John ! 

Yet under page 30, I find the following — 

" The Present tense has three distinct forms. 55 

Under the same page, I find the word, auxiliary, used technically. 

Still as auxiliary is a word which is generally applied untechni- 
cally, it is not a fit technical term — hence Mr. Bullions has done 
wrong to use it as such I ! 

Under the same page, I find Mr. Bullions uses the word, simple, 
as a technical ! ! 



INTRODUCTION. XXXV 

If the untechnical application of a word, disqualifies it for a 
technical term, why does Mr. Bullions use the words first, second, 
third, and even person, as technicals ! ? 

" John, give me the first book." 

1. John, a noun of the second person ! 

2. Me, a pronoun of the first person ! 

3. Book, a noun of the third person ! 

By the by, is not a book a singular person ? 

Does not Mr. Bullions use the word, singular, and the word, 
number too, technically ! ? This book on grammar, which is 
chanted as No. 1, by so many of the learned of our country, is in- 
deed a singular book ! ! 

Under page 203, I find the following— 

u When we use the word noun every one knows that we speak 
of a class of words so denominated in grammar." 

Ah ! Is the word, noun, the name of a class of words ! ? Why, 
under page 9, the word, noun, is defined to be the name of a thing ! 
Is a thing a class of words ! ! 

A noun, the name of a class of words ! yet the following is 
presented as its definition : 

" A noun is the name of a thing : as, John, London. 

John is neither a thing, nor a class of words — and if London is 
a thing, it is a singular thing that this great city, should be pre- 
sented as a class of ivords ! ! 

The old theory has no class names for words — in this respect it 
is destructively defective. 

A noun is a class of words. John is a noun — hence John is a 
class of words ! Mr. Bullions ! Mr. Bullions ! Mr. Bullions ! 

Why Mr. Bullions has attempted to advocate the use of terms 
in grammar, that are purely technical, I do not know. From all 
that I am able to learn, however, he wishes to put certain writers 
upon grammar out of his way ! But as the old nomenclature is 
any thing but technical, Mr. Bullions has shown little wisdom in 
objecting to the terms which other writers wish to introduce, upon 
the ground that they are without technical character. 

I agree, however, with Mr. Bullions that nomenclatures should 
be purely technical. Still I use the old terms which are not at all 
technical. 

Under page 16, I find the following — 

II « Of the Case of Nouns." 

" Case is the state or condition of a noun with respect to the 
other words in a sentence." 

As case is a very common word, why does Mr. Bullions use it 
as a technical term in grammar ? 

" Nouns have three cases, viz. the Nominative, Possessive, and 
Objective" 



XXXYI INTRODUCTION. 

** The nominative case expresses that of which something is said 
or declared ;" as, Go thou to school, John. 

The word, school, which Mr. Bullions himself parses in the 
objective case, is the only word in this sentence, which illustrates 
this definition of the nominative case ! ! 

The nominative case expresses that of which something is said, 
or declared ! 

John is spoken to, not of! Hence John cannot be in the 
nominative case by virtue of Mr. Bullions' definition of this case ! 
Nothing is said of the person denoted by thou. Hence this pro- 
noun is not in the nominative case ! ! Nothing is said to the 
school. But something is said of it — the school is spoken of. 
Hence the word, school, is in the nominative case — and, I presume, 
governed by the preposition to ! ! Mr. Bullions himself says that 
the school is spoken of. And as the school is spoken of, something 
must be said of it — it is impossible to speak of a thing without 
saying something of it ! 

But it may be inquired, How I know that Mr. Bullions says 
that the school is spoken of J 

Under page 9, he says — 

" The third person denotes the person or thing spoken of." 

Mr. Bullions parses school as a noun of the third person. And 
in this he declares that the school is spoken of. 

Case, says Mr. Bullions, is state, or condition. The nominative 
case of a noun, then, is the nominative condition of it ! Hence it 
follows that it is not the noun which expresses that of which some- 
thing is said ; but it is the nominative condition which expresses it ! 

u The nominative case (condition) expresses that of which some- 
thing is said • as, the sun shines." 

Does the word, sun, express what is spoken of, here % I under- 
stand it so. And, if I am right, the word, sun, according to Mr. 
Bullions, is the very case of the word sun ! 

What ! What patching ! 

The word, sun, then, is the state, or condition, of the word, sun, 
u in respect to the other words in the sentence ! !" 

I regret to find the names of gentlemen of whom I have hitherto 
thought well, appended to these books which are called by their 
authors, improvements on Murray. 

In the preceding sentence, / is in the nominative case to regret 
only. But Mr. Bullions says that /is in the nominative- case to 
every word in the sentence except 11 ! 

Case, says he, is the state or condition of a noun in respect to 
the other wo?'ds in a sentence ! ! 

But how is / in the nominative case ? Does / denote " that of 
which something is said ?" Certainly, I, then, denotes that 
which is spoken of I Hence / is of the third person ! ! 



INTRODUCTION. XXX vi 

u The nominative case expresses that of which something is said 
or declared," 

The third person is the person of which something is said ! ! 
Something is said of the person expressed by / — hence / is of the 
third person ! ! 

2. The Possessive Case. 
" The possessive case denotes that to which something be- 
longs ;" as, 

John has a book ! 
h. This is the book of John ! 
John in both instances, denotes the person to whom the book 
belongs — hence John is in the possessive case ! ! ! 
3. The Objective Case. 
" The objective case denotes the object of some action or re- 
lation ;" as, 

1. The rock was smitten fcy Moses ! 

2. The apple was picked by him ! 

3. John is by the table ! ! 

Does not rock denote that on which the action terminated ? 

Does not apple denote that which was acted upon ? And is not 
that which is acted upon, the object of an action 1 And is not 
John as near to the table as the table is to John ? Is not John, 
then, as much the object of this local relation as is the table ! ? 

Let me now ask — 

Has Mr. Bullions accomplished the object which induced him to 
come forth ? Hear, hear ! His object was to correct what is 
erroneous, to retrench what is superfluous, to compress what is 
prolix, to elucidate what is obscure, to determine what is left 
doubtful, to supply what is defective in Murray' ] s Grammar ! ! 

x4Jas ! Would Mr. Bullions accomplish his object, let him 
compare his own book with that of Mr. Murray. As the foibles 
of one man become virtues when compared with the crimes of an- 
other, so the faults in Murray will become perfections when com- 
pared with the gross obliquities of Bullions. 

Children who are taken from Murray to Bullions, will find a 
sorrow rising up in their hearts, deadening their primary hopes. 
They will look upon this other Murray as did the Jews of old upon 
the second temple — as nothing at all in comparison with the first ! 

They who wish to learn the extent of Mr. Bullions' qualifica- 
tions to mend Mr. Murray's Grammar, are referred to the Class 
Book of Criticism, in which I attempt to do justice to Murray, 
and to his unfeeling, and unskilful patchers ! 

Before I close these reflections, I deem it a duty to notice a 
work compiled by Mr. Goold Broivn, formerly a teacher in the city 
*f New York. As I have discussed the merits of his compilation 
in the Class Book of Criticism, I shall say but little of them in 



XXXV111 INTRODUCTION. 

this place. And I regret that what little I do say here, must be 
against his work. I feel confident, however, that all who give a 
moment's attention to the closing paragraph of his long preface, 
will come to the conclusion that little can be said in favour of his 
u finished labours !" The sentence reads as follows : 

" Having undertaken and prosecuted this work with a hope of 
facilitating the study of the English language, and thus promoting 
the improvement of the young, the author now presents his finished 
labours to the candour and discernment of those to whom is com- 
mitted the important business of instruction." 

The author says that he presents his finished labours now be- 
cause he undertook, and prosecuted this work with a hope of 
facilitating the study of the English language ! ! Why does the 
author present his finished labours at this particular time 1 Let 
him answer the question : Cs Because I undertook and prosecuted 
the work with a hope of facilitating the study of the English 
language /" 

Had not the author " finished his labours" I would suggest the 
following amendment : 

Having completed the work which the author undertook, and 
prosecuted with a hope of facilitating the study of the English 
language, he now presents it to the candour and discernment of 
those to whom is committed the important business of instruction. 

Although I cannot give my sanction to this sentence as a para- 
gon of grammatical excellence, I freely admit that it abounds in 
rare things ! For instance, — the period separates the means, or 
instrument from the process in which it is employed : 

" Having undertaken, and prosecuted this work with a hope of 
facilitating the study of the English language, and thus promoting 
the improvement of the young. 55 

The improvement of the young is the thing which the compiler 
wishes to accomplish ; and ike facilitating the study of the Eng- 
lish language is the means by which he is to accomplish this 
object. Yet in the arrangement of the parts of this interesting 
sentence, the means is mentioned before the object in whose 
accomplishment the means is employed ! ! After this the object 
to be accomplished by the means, is most beautifully dragged into 
connection with the means through the agency of the adveib, thus ! 
Perhaps the idea which I wish to express will be better under- 
stood by repeating the clause : 

" Having undertaken, and prosecuted this work with a hope of 
facilitating the study of the English language, and thus promoting 
the improvement of the young.' 5 

A man who makes no pretensions to any thing extraordinary ia 
the^form of grammatical knowledge, would probably arrange the 
parts of this clause as follows : 



INTRODUCTION. XXXIX 

Having under taken, and prosecuted this work with a hope of 
promoting the improvement of the young by facilitating the study 
of the English language. 

In the concluding part of the period, the compiler speaks of 
presenting his books to candour. 

u The author now presents his finished labours to the candour 
and discernment of those to whom is committed the important 
business of instruction." 

Is it possible that in a country where almost every man reads 
nearly every thing, individuals can be found, who speak of pre- 
senting books to candour ! ! ! 

If we can present books to a man's candour, why can we not 
present them to his honesty ? 

Sir, — I present this book to your honesty ! ! 

Having exposed a few of the warts, corns, and cancers which 
pervade this verbal body, by taking off a part of the full Rhetori- 
cal dress in which this queen of sentences is so tastefully attired, 
I will beg the pardon of her learned parent for raising this riot in 
her royal palace ! And to do all I can to appease him7 I will 
place his last-born in juxtaposition with my last innovations upon 
a few of its limbs : 

" Having undertaken and prosecuted this work with a hope of 
facilitating the study of the English language, and thus promoting 
the improvement of the young, the author now presents his finished 
labours to the candour, and discernment of those to whom is com- 
mitted the important business of instruction." — (46 words.) 

Having completed the work which the author undertook with 
the hope of promoting the improvement of the young by facilitating 
the study of English grammar, he now presents it to the candid 
and discerning teacher. — (36 words.) 

I have not made this sentence the subject of comment to expose 
all of its various errors in grammar. I have introduced it to 
show a want of logical skill, a destitution of sound reason, which 
renders its author totally incompetent to make a useful book on 
any subject. 

Under another page of the preface, he says : 

" Amidst this rage for speculation on a subject purely practical, 
various attempts have been made to overthrow that system of in- 
struction, which long use has rendered venerable, and which long 
experience has shown to be useful." 

" Such attempts have generally met the reception they de- 
served." " Kieir history will .give no encouragement to future 
innovators" 

If the fate of present innovators on false theories, has a ten- 
dency to discourage future lovers of truth, how must that of the 
present compilers of these theories, dissuade future aspirants to 



Xl INTRODUCTION. 

authorship, from extending the labour of their instruction beyond 
the school room ! 

I hope that my innovation upon the old theory of English gram- 
mar, will not give my namesake so much offence that he will at- 
tempt to avenge himself by producing a cessation in the public 
patronage of my labours. Should it provoke him to take such a 
course, my system might be as badly off as were the Grecian ships 
which, by a calm in the wind, ordered by the miffed Diana, were 
immovably fixed while bound for Troy ! 

" Amidst this rage for speculation on a subject purely practical, 
various attempts have been made to overthrow that system of in- 
| struction, which long vse has rendered venerable, and which long 
/ experience has shown to be useful" 

Should Mr. Goold Brown's knowledge of English grammar, as 
exhibited in this sentence, be4aken as the standard by which to 
judge of the usefulness of the old " system of instruction," he 
would find little to sustain him in the position which he here 
takes. 

"Bage for speculation," is neither sense, nor English. Pope 
says — 

" The rage of thirst, the rage of hunger, the rage of pain, the 
rage of a fever." 

Cowley says — 

" The rage of a tempest." 

Webster says — 

c; The rage for money." 

That is, a rage to procure money. 

But does Mr. Goold, Brown intend to say that these innovators 
were in a rage to procure speculation ! ? What ! is speculation an 
article of traffic that it may be purchased, and sold like knives, 
and forks ? Where is speculation to be had — at whose store, shop, 
or stand, may this article be procured ! ? 

The word, rage, as used by my namesake, is intended to show 
the quality of the act of speculation. This learned compiler 
meant to say that they conducted their speculations with extreme 
eagerness. This, he would have said, had he used in instead of 
for : 

Amidst this rage in speculation. 

But, in place of in, the compiler employs for — hence instead 
of presenting these detestable innovators in the act of speculation, 
he gives them a strong wish to procure speculation ! ! 

1. Amidst this rage for money, (To procure money.) 

2. Amidst this rage for speculation. 

3. Amidst this rage in speculation. 

The rage felt by these men, was carried into their speculation 
— hence the rage was in the speculations. 



INTRODUCTION. xli 

It should not be forgotten that Mr. Goold Brown has grown 
gray in teaching by the very theory which enables him to use for 
for in ! 

" Amidst this rage for speculation on a subject purely 'practical?' 

Practical is an adjective belonging to the noun, subject. That 
Mr. Goold Brown can parse this word as well as Mr. James Brown^ 
is admitted without hesitation. But, that a capacity to say that 
practical is an adjective, belonging to subject, does not show a 
capacity to use practical with propriety, is obvious from the 
erroneous application which Mr. Goold Brown has here made of 
this word. A subject, as such, has not the property which is de- 
noted by the word, practical. Can it be said with propriety, this 
subject will be applied to practice ? Has any one ever heard the 
expression, — the subject of the present discussion, has been applied 
to practice ! ? When a thing is said to be practical, it cannot be 
taken in the character of a subject of discussion. It must be 
taken in another character, and by another name. Thus it may 
be predicted of knowledge, as such, that it is practical. But be- 
cause knowledge, as knowledge, may be said to be practical, does 
it follow that knowledge, as a subject of discussion, can be said to 
be practical I ? 

Was it not for subjecting myself to the charge, that I am prag- 
matical, I would propose to this Murray mender, who says that he 
has taken the liberty to think for himself, the substitution of 
system for subject ! 

Amidst this rage in speculation on a system purely practical. 

I have been somewhat amused with the reason which Mr. Goold 
Brown says, induced him to write an English Grammar. He gives 
it in the following words : 

" For as Lord Bacon observes : ' The number of ill-written 
books is not to be diminished by ceasing to write, but by writing 
others which, like Aaron's serpent, shall swallow up the spurious.' " 

Now, I have no hesitation in saying that, from the countless 
number of gross errors in the principles, style, and methods of Mr. 
Goold Brown's book, it has swallowed down all the spurious 
Grammars which preceded it. 

It is said by many that the serpent, to use Lord Bacon's appel- 
lation, by Dr. Bullions, is an offspring from the Finished Labours 
of Goold Brown. And, although the manner of this derivation 
may be enveloped in a little mystery, Mr. G. B.'s serpent does 
seem to bear a parental relation to Dr. Bullions' ! If Mr. G. B.'s 
serpent is viviparous, and the source of Br. Bullions', which Mr. 
G. B. himself alleges, the Doctor is not so culpable as the 
numerous gross errors in his book seem to indicate. But if Mr. 
G. B.'s serpent is oviparous, and the origin of Dr. Bullions' Mr. 
G, B. should have the credit of laying the eggs, and Dr. B* the 



*lii INTRODUCTION, 

praise of hatching them* Be this as it may, however, I frequently 
open these animals in the progress of this book. And, if the 
pupil wishes to behold their frantic throes, to see the deadly 
poison which they have in their horny cells for him, and to witness 
the pus of error, generated in the ulcers which these two Murray 
menders have added to Murray's soresj he will read this work with 
interest. 



AN APPEAL FROM 
ERROR TO TRUTH. 



CHAPTER I.— Truth, and Knowledge. 

1. What is truth ? 2. What is knowledge ? 

Truth is a conformity of the thing signified to the sign used ; 
and knowledge is the apprehension of this conformity. 

Illustration : Three marks. 111. 

The phrase, " three marks" is the sign used. The three marks 
are the things signified. The numeral agreement of the marks 
with the sign used, is that conformity which constitutes truth ; 
and the apprehension of this conformity, is knowledge. Unless 
there is this conformity of the thing pointed out, to the sign em- 
ployed, there is no truth ; and, as knowledge is the apprehension 
of truth ; and, as there can be no truth in the absence of this con- 
formity for the mind to apprehend, it follows that there is no 
knowledge in the mind where there is a want of this conformity of 
the thing denoted, to the sign used. This may be illustrated in 
the following scheme : Six marks, 1111. 

Here the sign used is " Six marks" But, as there are not six 
marks in the group denoted, there is no apprehension of truth in 
the case ; for that very conformity which constitutes truth, is 
wanting ! Now, there is iruth in any art, or science in which 
there is a correspondence, a conformity, an agreement between the 
terms, definitions, rules, and remarks, and the principles of the art, 
or science : and the student who apprehends this conformity, has 
knowledge ; for the apprehension of truth is knowledge. 
Truth. Error. Error. 

1. Circle: 1. Circle: 1. Circle: 

® ■ H 

2. Square : 2. Square : 2. Square : 

M A A 

3.. Triangle : 3. Triangle : 3. Triangle: 

£ EZO g 

It is seen, then, that tmth is a conformity of the prototype to 
the simple, or complex sign which is used ; and that error is a 

(43) 



44 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM, 

want of a conformity of the prototype to the simple, or complex 
sign used. Now, the science of English grammar is a complex 
prototype ; and the book designed for the expression of this complex 
prototype, is the complex sign used* And in exact proportion to the 
conformity of this complex prototype to the complex sign employed 
for its expression, the old theory of English grammar is true ; 
and in exact proportion to a want of this conformity, is this theory 
erroneous. To ascertain, then, to what extent this theory is time, 
or false, it will be necessary to examine the doctrines, the princi- 
ples of the complex prototype, and the significancy of the complex 
sign which is used for the expression of these doctrines,, these 
principles. Into this examination I shall now enter with 
some degree of minuteness* And, if I do not conduct the 
discussion with the candour of a Christian, and with the skill of a 
logician, it is because these invaluable attributes are beyond my 
power of attainment. 

Having taken what may be denominated the first step in this 
discussion, 1 will pass on to the second ; and this I intend to take 
with great care. 

A Definition. 

There is always something which makes the thing what it is : and 
this something is here called the chvracteristic of the thing. The 
characteristic of a thing is that certain part which makes the thing 
what it is. The characteristic is the sine qua non part. That is, 
the char vet eristic is that part without which the thing could not be 
what it is ; as, the spring of a watch, or the weights of a clock. 
And a definition is that proposition which distinguishes, which 
points out the thing by its characteristic ; as, 

1. A watch is a time-piece which goes by a spring. 

2. A clock is a time-piece which goes by weights. 

1. That which is the characteristic of one thing, may not be the 
characteristic of another ; hence it does not follow because a spring 
is the characteristic of a watch, that it is the characteristic of a 
book. (Some books are bound with springs in their backs.) A 
time-piece without a spring, is not a watch : but a volume is a 
book without a spring* 

2. No thing has more than one characteristic. 

3. Every member of the same class must have the same char- 
acteristic. 

4. All the things which have the same chacteristic, must belong 
to the same class. 

5. No things which have not the same characteristic, can belong 
to the same class. 1 

1. It is the province of a definition to point out one class from 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 45 

another. Hence we may give a definition of man ; but not of a 
man. 

2. It is the province of a description to point out one thing, or 
individual from another. Hence we describe a man ; but define 
man. A definition considers things as classes — but a description 
considers things as individuals. 

3. A definition can have no exception — a rvle can have an 
exception. 



CHAPTER II.— Language. 

A language is a set of names , words, or signs, from which 
sentences are constructed. 

REMARK I. 

The word, language, is derived from lingua, the Latin name of 
the tongue — and from the importance of this organ in the forma- 
tion of this instrument, the instrument itself is called language. 

Printing and writing, properly speaking, are the notes of lan- 
guage, and bear the same vicarious relation to this instrument, 
which the notes in music bear to the real music. But as printing, 
and writing communicate our ideas, they in function identify 
themselves with the great Lingua instrument — therefore these 
representatives have come to be called by the name of the thing 
represented — Hence we have the phrases, " written language^ 
printed language, and spoken language." But language in the 
true, confined sense, is that significant material which is formed 
*out of voice by a marvellous play of wonderful organs upon 
sounds which are first produced by the actions of the windpipe 
upon the air that proceeds from the lungs. 

Let us see whether the following propositions are a definition of 
language. 

1. A Language, or Tongue is a set of words made use of by 
any nation, or people, to communicate their thoughts to one an- 
other. — J. Newberry. 

Language is the instrument, or means of communicating ideas. 
Webster's Grammar. _ 

Language is a principal vehicle of thought. — Gr. Brown. 

Language, in its most extensive sense, comprehends all signifi- 
cant signs by which animals communicate intelligence from one to 
another. — J. Jones. 

It appears to me that grammarians have not been very happy 
in their attempts at defining a Language. They tell us in sub- 
stance, that a Language is the medium through which men com- 
municate their thoughts to each other. But it seems, from what 
appears to be a proper view of the subject, that a language is the 



46 CLASS BOOK OF CltXTigiSM. 

mere materia] out of which the medium for communicating thought 
is formed. It appears to me, that a sentence is the only medium 
through which men express their thoughts. If a man wishes to 
communicate to me the fact, or the complex thought that, he is 
sick, he does not sieze a Language, as a huntsman does a gun, as 
the means by which to accomplish his object. He makes a draft 
of three, or four words upon some language which we both under- 
stand, and forms these words into a sentence: and, through the 
medium of this sentence, he communicates the complex thought, 

u I am sick" 

Now, is the English language the medium through which this 
thought is communicated, or is the sentence, " / am sick," this 
medium ? If this thought is communicated to me through the 
medium of the English language, then, the sentence, " / am sick" 
is the English language ! And, if this sentence is the English 
language, the English language has not quite so many words as 
Dr. Webster has enumerated ! The word, language, is not 
synonymous with the word, speech. In the phrase, " a language," 
the word, language, does not contemplate words in a combined 
state, but in an isolated, detached one. The word, speech, how- 
ever, contemplates words in a combined, a syn taxed condition. 

1. A language is the words from which any community, people, 
or nation forms that sejitential medium through which they com- 
municate their thoughts. A language is the material ; and a 
sentence is the medium which is constructed from this material. 
The bricks, before employed by the mason, are as much the house 
itself, as are the isolated words the medium of communicating 
thought ! 

The following propositions are submitted as substitutes for the 
old definition of language : 

1. A language is a set of words out of which a nation, a people, 
or a community constructs sentences for the communication of their 
ideas. 

2. A language is the significant material out of which a com- 
munity of people, constructs sentences for the expression of their 
thoughts. 

The characteristic of a language lies in the fact that it is the 
"material out of which the vehicle of thought is constructed. That 
is, it is this relation of material to a sentence, the true vehicle of 
thought, which makes a set of verbal signs a language. The great 
principle is this, — whatever is employed as the material out of 
w T hich sentences are formed, is a language. Hence, if sentences 
are constructed from pins, and needles ; pins, and needles are a 
language. 

What the materials of a carriage are to this vehicle of pleasure, 
language is to the vehicle of thought. And, if the materials out 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISE. 47 

of which a carriage can be made, can be denominated a carriage, 
then indeed can the unsyntaxcd words, yes, precisely as they stand 
in the columns of the Spelling Book, or the Dictionary, be 
called the vehicle for the communication of thought ! Our gram- 
marians, then, have committed the singular error of applying the 
name of the thing formed, to the materials out of which it is 
formed ! Nay, more, for they have ascribed, through the medium 
of this error, the very function, the very instrumentality of the 
thing formed, to the materials out of which it is formed ! They 
say that language is the medium of communicating ideas ; / say 
that language is the mere material from which this medium is 
constructed ! In other words : they affirm that rags are the paper 
on which we write, and print : I say that rags are the materials 
out of which this paper is made ! 



CHAPTER III. — Definition of English Grammar. 

1. " English Grammar is the art of speaking, and writing the 
English language with propriety. 5 ' — Murray. 

2. " English grammar is the art of speaking, and writing the 
English language with propriety." — Lennie. 

3. u English grammar is the art of speaking, and writing the 
English language with propriety." — Comly. 

4. "English grammar is the art of speaking, and writing the 
English language correctly." — Goold Brown. 

5. "English grammar teaches us to speak, and write the Eng- 
lish language correctly." — Roswell C. Smith. 

6. " English grammar is the art of speaking, and writing the 
English language with propriety." — French. 

The first remark which may be made upon the above definitions, 
is that each obviously violates a plain principle of the very science 
which they all attempt in vain to define. That they should fail 
of defining grammar, is nothing strange : nor is it any thing sin- 
gular, that they should all be found faulty in construction. But, 
that they should all be marred with the same impropriety, is not 
only singular, but somewhat surprising. The use of the three 
words, speaking, and writing, for the word, using, is a 'pleonasm 
which is not so singular in itself as in its multiplications. In cor- 
recting Mr. Murray, I shall of course, correct those whom he has 
led into error in construction, and doctrine : 

English grammar is the art of using the English language with 
propriety. 

The objection to the doctrine of this definition of grammar, is 
that it embraces philology, the whole science of words. T.h.e defi- 
nition embraces philology which is taught by a Dictionary, and 
Rhetoric which is taught by a Rhetoric. (Book II.) 



48 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

That the above definitions of grammar have led to erroneous 
views upon the true boundary line of this science, is obvious 
from the following definitions of it : 

1. " Grammar is the science of language. The object of gram- 
mar is to investigate the principles of speech, and to teach' the 
right use of words." — J. Jones. 

2. " Grammar is the science of language." — Samuel Kirkham. 

3. u Grammar is the science of language." — John S. Hart. 
These three definitions have obviously sprung from the lax 

phraseology of Murray's attempt to define this science. He says 
that, 

" English grammar is the art of speaking, and writing the Eng- 
lish language with propriety." 

Whereas upon a very little investigation, it will be seen that 
English-grammar is but a mere part of the art of speaking, and 
writing the English language with propriety. The science of 
language respects all the principles of speech. To learn, or to 
teach the art, or science of using any language with propriety, aa 
many as three books are necessary ; namely, a Grammar, a Dic- 
tionary, and a Rhetoric. 

1. A Grammar teaches that part of the art of using a language 
with propriety, which consists of the formation, the modification, 
and the arrangement of words. 

2. A Dictionary teaches that part of the art of using a langu- 
age with propriety, which consists of the literal import, or meaning 
of words. 

3. A Rhetoric teaches that part of the art of using a language 
with propriety, which consists of the exact adaptation of the words 
to the nature of the occasion, and to the figurative character of the 
ideas intended to be expressed by the writer, or speaker. — 

Mr. Murray has divided the whole of this art " into four parts, 
viz., Orthography, Etymology, Syntax, and Prosody." 

Now, in defining these four parts, the author loses more than 
half of what is included in his definition of English grammar ! 

1. " Orthography teaches the nature, and powers of letters, 
and the just method of spelling words." 

2. " Etymology is the second part of grammar, which treats 
of the different sorts of words, their various modifications, and 
their derivation." 

3. "Syntax is the third part of grammar, which treats of the 
agreement, and construction of words in a sentence." 

4. " Prosody is the fourth part of grammar, which teaches the 
/ true pronunciation of words, comprising accent, quantity, emphasis, 

' pause, and tone, and the laws of versification" 

These four parts, as here set out, do not comprise even half as 
much as the entire definition as given by Murray, and his fol- 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 49 

lowers. But the parts ought to be equal to the whole ! The 
definition embraces all that can be said of language ; but the 
parts into which this definition is divided, omit perspicuity of ex- 
pression, purity of style, propriety of language, precision of words, 
and phrases, clearness of sentences, unity of sentences, strength 
of sentences, figures of speech, and punctuation! ! Mr. Murray 
himself enumerates these branches, and warmly reccGmmends all 
to attend to them as soon as they shall have acquired a knowledge 
— of what ? Why, a knowledge of English grammar I I That 
is, after the student shall have acquired the art of speaking, and 
writing the English language with propriety , he ought to attend 
to these parts that he may be able to use it with accuracy ! ! 

" English grammar is the art of speaking, and writing the Eng- 
lish language with propriety" 

This definition includes too much ; or the works which present 
it, do not include enough. The definition says that English gram- 
mar is the whole art of using the English language with propriety ; 
and yet the very books, the very English Grammars which give 
this definition, make no attempt to teach the Dictionary meaning 
of words ! If the old definition of English grammar is sound, 
there should be added to the works which are called English 
Grammars, a full Dictionary, and a complete Rhetoric: the 
literal meaning of words can not be learned without a Dictionary ; 
and the figurative meaning of them can not be acquired without a 
Rhetoric, 

Let us see what Dr. Webster says of grammar. 

6. "Grammar, as a science, treats of the natural connexion 
between ideas and words which are the signs of ideas, and devel- 
opes the principles of all languages !" 

The above is a better account of philology than of grammar ! 
Philology is the science which treats of the (not natural) con- 
nexion of words with ideas, and developes the significant principles 
of all languages. 

Dr. Webster proceeds : 

" These principles, [principles of language) are not arbitrary, 
nor subject to change, hut fixed, and permanent, being founded on 
facts, and distinctions which are fixed by nature ! Thus the 
distinction between the sexes, between things, and their qualities, 
between the names of substances, and (the names) of their actions, 
or motions ; between unity, and plurality ; between present, and 
future, time and some other distinctions, are founded in nature, 
and give rise to different species of words, and to various inflec- 
tions in all languages." 

Nothing is more unsound than the doctrine that the principles 
of language are not subject to change. Mr. Webster has con- 
founded the subject of language with that of nature. And I pre- 



50 CLASS BOOK OP CRITICISM. 

sume that when he declares that language is not arbitrary, he in- 
tends to say that nature is not arbitrary, but fixed, and permanent ! 
That is, the sexes are not the arbitrary conventional productions 
of men, not the changeable creatures of human communities, but 
the fixed, permanent gifts, or distinctions of nature herself ! Or, 
in other words, the fact that John is a man, and not & woman, and 
that Sarah is a woman, and not a man, is not the result of any 
conventional agreement among men, but of nature, and of her alone. 
If, however, this distinguished grammarian means to tell us that 
the fact, that the word, John, represents a male, and not a female, 
and the fact, that the word, Sarah, is the name of a female, and 
not of a male, is not arbitrary, is not changeable, but is fixed, and 
permanent, in short, is the rasult of nature, I must dissent. In- 
deed there would be much difficulty in persuading me, even by all 
the means that can be brought to bear upon the subject, that 
nature has any agency in fixing the application of the word, John, 
to a male, and the word, Sarah, to a female. Nothing could con- 
vince me that this is the fact, but ocular demonstration, of the 
attachment, the appendage, of these words to their respective 
sexes at the very time of their birth. I must see that nature has 
fixed John to a male, and Sarah to a female by her own type be- 
fore I can agree with this great scholar in ascribing to nature an 
uncontrolable sway over the science of speech ! If words are 
produced, inflected, modified, and applied by nature, how does it 
happen that the same word has so many significations as this 
learned author has given to the word philology ? Is nature as 
various in character as he has made "philology," in meaning! ? 
How does it happen too, if words are under the control of nature, 
that the same w 7 ord is applied both to males, and females ; as, 
person, servant, teacher, who, which, bird, child, friend, &e. % Do 
we find nature thus duplicating the functions of her acknowledged 
works ? Does she require the eye to see, and hear too ? Will it 
be said that the being who is called a person, has no sex, and, 
consequently, the word, person, is under no control from anv 
natural gender ? This can not be urged. 

But, if nature is the basis of the structure of speech, how is it 
that not only words become obsolete, but inflections also ? What 
has caused the inflection, den, in the word, stride, to fall into 
decay— stridc/m ? What rude hand has so far assailed nature, 
the basis of speech, as to wrench the den inflection of ride from 
its natural place — ridden ? What, too, has arrested the deflection, 
writ, on its way through life ? Nature still lives, and should 
afford succour to all her children ! " Writ," was once the flour- 
ishing, blooming form into which write threw itself to mark past 
time ! If this past-tense form of write^ was the work of nafure % 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 51 

and nature lias not sustained it, who will predict the perpetuity of 
write itself! ' 

It seems that nature, or men, once proposed the word, dis- 
opinion, to be used in the sense of difference of opinion. Now, 
did nature put her veto upon the passage of this proposition ; or 
did man's frigid look of disapprobation so benumb this verbal bant- 
ling that it had no power to creep into manhood ? And what is 
it which rejected the following verbal deformity, bescumber ? 
B. Jonson proposed it — and did man, or did nature or did both 
flee from it ? Think you, if the community of England had taken 
this novus verbum into their literary service, that nature, under a 
Quo Warranto, would have proceeded to inquire of that distin- 
guished people, by what warrant, by what authority, by what 
right they had made it a part of the diction of that far-famed 
island ! 

* A proposition has been made also to make besee a word ! This 
alphabetic concretion, however, has not become a part of our lan- 
guage. The proposition was made by Wickliffe. But did he 
make the proposition to nature ? No, no. He made it to the 
community of which he was a member — he made the proposition 
to the human family to adopt thia alphabetic terror as a part of 
their speech. He made the proposition by using this alphabetic 
convention ■ and his race rejected his proposition by not using it. 



CHAPTER IV.— A Sentence. 

A Sentence is a very peculiar assemblage of words, and it 
should be well understood by him who attempts to acquire a 
knowledge of grammar. The definition of a sentence is a very 
unsuccessful attempt, as may be seen from an examination of the 
following reflections : 

1. " A sentence is an assemblage of words forming a complete 
sense." 

2. " A verb, and a noun united form a sentence." 

3. u A sentence is an assemblage of words making complete 
sense, and always contains an agent and a verb." 

4. " In philosophical language, a sentence consists of a subject 
and a predicate, connected by an affirmation." 

5. " A sentence is an expression of connected thought." 

To understand the first of the above definitions, one should be 
able to say what its author intends by the phrase, " a complete 
sense." The word " complete," means finished, ended, full ! The 
word "sense," as used in this definition, must mean perception, or 
apprehension of the mind. It seems, then, that a sentence is an 

5* 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 52 

assemblage of words, forming a finished, an ended, or a full per- 
ception, or apprehension ; as, John, new book, old loine. 

In calling to an individual by the instrumentality of the word, 
John, the perception produced, is complete ; for he has a full, and 
distinct apprehension that he is addressed : hence, this noun is 
indeed the assemblage of words, which forms a sentence ! ! But it 
may be said that although the individual thus addressed 3 may 
have a complete apprehension that he is addressed ; yet, as this 
salutation is a mere preparation for some proposition, it is evident 
that the sense is not ended, not finished, consequently, not com- 
plete. By parity of reasoning, then, the assertion, " John is," is 
not a sentence ; for, as in the case of the address something more 
may be looked for, so in the instance of this assertion, something 
more must be expected* To the first we may affix this: John, 
come here. To the second we may subjoin this : John is sick un- 
to death. 

Upon this principle, the assertion, I saw those red, is not a sen- 
tence, because I do not say those red what ! But the subjunction 
of the things seen, renders this assertion a sentence ; as, I saw 
those red apples I 

So too the affirmation, " Jane ivas punished " is not a sentence, 
because the writer does not subjoin by whom she was punished ! 

2. " A verb and a noun form a sentence. 5 ' Or, 

" Any finite verb with its nominative case forms a sentence ;'* 
as, John is. 

This definition does not tell what a sentence is ; it specifies 
what parts of speech compose one I To mention the material of 
which a table may be made, is not telling what a table is ! 

" Any finite verb with its nominative case forms a sentence ;'* 
as j If he is there. 

He, and is are the materials out of which Mr, Murray makes a 
sentence — yet as the sense is not complete, the following definition 
by Mr. Kirkham, seems strongly to question Mr. Murray's ability 
to form a sentence out of so few materials : 

" A sentence is an assemblage of words, forming a complete 
sense !" 

That is, to form a sentence, you must add word to word, sub- 
join phrase to phrase, and annex clause to clause till all the con- 
nected, or relative parts of the same topic, are crowded into one 
undivided mass of words! ! 

3. " A sentence is an assemblage of words making complete 
sense, and always containing an agent and a verb j" as, / have 
been punished I 

As Mr. Davenport has given no example in illustration of this 
definition, I have taken the liberty of supplying this very obvious 
deficiency. But I fear that the one which I have given him is not 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM* 53 

so well adapted to his views as lie may wish. And I must admit 
that as the assemblage of words, which I have employed contains 
no agent, it seems not a very happy choice ! 

The next definition which I shall repeat, is from the pen of 
Noah Webster — 

" In philosophical language, a sentence consists of a subject 
and a predicate, connected by an affirmation. Thus, God is 
omnipotent." 

According to this definition, every sentence comprises an affirma- 
tion ! Therefore, the following syllabanes are not sentences : 

1. Is Grod omnipotent ? 

2. Did Saul persecute the Christians % 
o. John, put your book on the table. 

4. Joseph, will you bring some water ? 

5. Is your family all well % 

6. " Have mercy on us." 

7. " Forgive our sins" 

" How the rule vanishes before the test !" — Webster. 

8. " A sentence is the expression of connected thought." 
Although this definition is laughable, it is as sound as any of 

the old ones. " Ripe Apples" is a phrase which expresses con- 
nected, and regularly connected thought ; yet this phrase, except 
by the authority of Mr. Kirkham, is not a sentence ! 

Hitherto insuperable difficulties have been found in attempting 
to define a sentence. These, it is apprehended, have arisen from 
not ascertaining the sentence characteristic which distinguishes a 
sentence from every other verbal combination. I believe that I 
have ascertained the true characteristic of a sentence. 

The characteristic is the capacity of the verbal combination to 
stand alone. But the word, sentence, is not expressive of this 
characteristic capacity of the verbal assemblage— hence I might 
use the word, Monologue with the word, sentence. [Monos, alone, 
and Logos, Speech.] 

A sentence is a combination of two, or more words, which is 
so far cut off from every other verbal assemblage in sense, and 
construction, that it can stand alone ; as, Master, I have brought 
my son unto thee. 

2. She said, no man, Lord. 

3. In the beginning ivas the Word ; and the Ward was with 
God ; and the Word was God. 

4. lam. [Book I. p. 16.] 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM* 



CHAPTER V.— The Division of a Sentence intd Sections, 

They who can divide a sentence into sections? and construe 
each section fully, and readily, have nearly accomplished the 
work of learning English Grammar* But they that have net ac- 
quired the capacity to do this, must acquire it, or remain ignorant 
of this science. 

If any one presumes that a mere capacity to parse words as 
nouns, and verbs, pronouns ^ and prepositions, adjectives, conjunct 
tions, and adverbs, constitutes him a grammarian, I can inform 
him that his presumption is fallacious. Nothing but a thorough 
knowledge of Book I., of the Rational System will enable a 
person to learn English grammar. 

The incompetency of the British theory of English Grammar to 
enable one to parse certain words which are found in properly 
constructed sentences, is the want of the part of the Rational 
system, which is denominated Construing. (Book I. p. 84.) 

All who have written English Grammars have found words in 
accurately formed sentences, which they have not been able to 
parse according to any principles laid down in their books. They 
have denominated these words anomalies, and idioms. Whether 
these words are thus degraded to shield the Grammars, or to 
teach the philosophy of the words themselves, is quite unimportant. 

But as an anomaly is an irregularity, or a deviation from fixed 
principles, it may turn out that the grammars themselves^ are 
anomalies ! That they are irregularities, and deviations from the 
fixed principles of the English language, is a truth which no one 
who examines the subject, can doubt for a moment. These Gram- 
mars, however, are not idioms, for an idiom is something peculiar 
to a language ; but these works are not peculiar to any language, 
nor common to all : they are inconsistent with the constructive 
genius of language. 

Mr. Kirkham remarks, in his Pittsburg edition, in relation to 
these words, as follows : 

" Thus I have taken a slight glance at the different views of 
Grammarians, in relation to these words and phrases — and, since 
I am not disposed to agree with any of them, perhaps it may be 
demanded in what manner I would parse these examples myself. 
An answer is at hand. I would not parse them at all !" \ 

Now, this is a very candid confession of an inability to parse 
them. Thus they parse the language by passing it by as idioms ? 
eccentricities, and anomalies I 

The reasoning employed by Mr. Murray for introducing- the 
objective case, applies in this instance with great force : 

"The business of parsings and showing the connexion and 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM* 55 

dependence of words will be most conveniently accomplished by 
the adoption of an objective case ; and the irregularity of having 
our nouns sometimes placed in a situation, in which they cannot 
be said to be in any case at all, will be obviated." 

Mr. Murray seems to have considered it a kind of disgrace that 
nouns should be found in the English language, which could not 
be said to be in some case — -and, to remove this stigma, he ventures 
to introduce, contrary to the genius of the language, the objective 
case. 

Nor has Mr* Murray, in my opinion, acted with any kind of 
impropriety in making this important provision. As those nouns 
for which Mr. Murray's objective case provides, were left without 
solution, so phrases, idioms, and anomalies are now passed by 
without notice. And every thing which a teacher cannot parse? 
is disgraced by the epithet, anomaly, and banished from the pro- 
cess of solution! 

But all the words and phrases which are denominated anomalies 1 
do no more transcend the principles of grammar solution than the 
plainest constructed sentence which has ever been framed by the 
clearest, and purest writer in the English language. 

To bring them, however, within the reach of teachers? it is 
necessary to use some means to present their true constructive 
bearing in the frame-work of the sentence. 

The means by which this can be accomplished is that part of 
the Rational System? which is called 

Construing, 

In English* Construing is the analysis of Sections as the trunks, 
and branches of Sentences. 

A section is a trunk word, or a combination of trunk} and 
branch words, giving an entire part of the complex thought ex- 
pressed by the sentence ; as, (Ah) [John,) [have you come again ?} 

(Master,) [I have brought my son] [unto thee) {.who hath (t 
dumb spirit ") 

All sections have order, diction? notation? and state* 

I. Order* 

The orbee of a Section, respects its constructive sending as 
a distinct part of a Sentence. 

Sections have two orders, Trunk, and Branch* 

I. The Trunk Order* 

The trunk order of a Section, respects its high wp^truetive 
standing, its trunk-like independence of all other sections ; as? 
(Master,) [/ have brought my son] (unto thee,) (who hath a dumb 
spirit,) 



66 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

II. The Branch Order* 

The branch order of a Section, respects its subordinate con* 
siruetive standing, its branch-like dependence upon another sec- 
tion of the same sentence 5 as, [Master) [I have brought my son] 
{unto thee.) 

A specimen of Sectionizing by Figures 

N.B. All the words which have the same figure, belong to the 
same section* (Book L, page 56.) 

FIRST SENTENCE* 

11122 2 2 33 344 

On the margin of the Connecticut river which runs near to the 
4555 5566 67 

college, stood many majestic forest trees which were nourished by 

a rich soil 

SECOND SENTENCE* 

1222 111333 
When the bell rings, look , out for the cars. 

THIRD SENTENCE. 

111222 133 3 

Look ye out for the cars when the bell rings. 

FOURTH SENTENCE. 

1 1 111 1 112 

Those, beautiful, young, fine, green, straight trees grew in 
22 3 3344444 
that field which you see on the left hand side* 

FIFTH SENTENCE. 

11123 3 3 24 4 4 

An a ed beggar who with trembling knees, stood at the gate 
55566777788 8' 
of a portico from which he had been thrust by the insolent 

8999111 1 

domestic who guarded it, struck the prisoner's attention. 

SIXTH SENTENCE. 

1 1 1 2233 3444*5 

A certain emperor of China, on his accession to the throne of 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISE. 57 

55. 1 11 1666G7 

his ancestors, commanded a general release of all those , who 

7 7 8 8 9 9 

were confined in prison, for debt. 

SEVENTH SENTENCE. 

11111422 S 

Sweet was the sound when oft, at evening's close, 
3 3 3 4 4 4 4 

Up yonder hill the village murmur rose. 

EIGHTH SENTENCE. 

Ill 22 2 3 3 344 4 
An old clock that had stood for fifty years in a farmer's 
4 5 5 56667778 8 

kitchen, without the giving to its owner, of any cause of complaint, 

19 9 9 9 1 10 10 10 10 

early on one summer's morning, before the family was stirring, 

1 1 

suddenly stopped 

I will now invite the reader to parse together in the following 
sentence : 

" They rode for two days together." 

I do not wish him, however, to inform me what this word 
means ! I desire him to parse it. 

Does the reader call together an adverb? But to what verb, 
participle , adjective, or adverb does together belong? 

" Together , together, together > means successively." 

But, reader, no one has asked you what this word means — all 
must know the meaning of this simple word, surely ! Well — 
" ihey rode for two days together." That is, they were in com- 
pany. This sentence means, then, that they were not apart 
when they rode ! 

Why, even a novice in grammar, would know what this sen- 
tence means. But the meaning is one thing — the connection of 
together with some super word in the sentence, is another thing ! 
Indeed, however, you have not even told the meaning of the sen- 
tence. The idea is not that the persons were in company, but 
that the days were in company. To give the sentence your im- 
port, it should read : 

They rode together for two days. 
But, as together is the last word in the other construction, the 
meaning is very different. 

" They rode for two days together** 



58 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

" Together ! Oh, now I understand it !" Understand what 
" Why, how to parse together. Together is an adverb, qualify, 
ing the verb, rode !" What, sir, if you drop one of the agents : 
" He rode for two days together " 

" Ah ! He rode, he rode, he rode — that means" — means — indeed 
it is all means ! "Together is an anomaly ! /" Will you tell me 
by what rule ? Perplexed sir. will you permit me to prepare this 
sentence for parsing ? 

[" They rode] (for two days) ( , , together."] 

This sentence comprises just three sections — and observe this ; 
each section must be parsed by itself. You cannot carry for out 
of its own section — nor can you carry " together" out of its own 
section. You must now ask what parts of speech an adverb can 
qualify. 

" An adverb may qualify a whole sentence ;" yes, it may 
change, or vary the general import of a sentence ; and so als<? 
may an adjective ; as, " JVo man may put off the law of God." 

" Here the whole negative import arises from the adjective, 
no. And, if the adverb, not, is used, it is the same thing." 

In this, reader, you are perfectly correct. Hence, I will ex- 
press my ideas with a little more care, and precision. You must 
ask, then, with what parts of speech, adverbs may have a me- 
chanical connexion. As to qualifying — adverbs, and adjectives 
also qualify, not so much the words to which they may be joined, 
as the whole sentence in which they are used. 

Adverbs may have a constructive relation with verbs, participles, 
adjectives, and other adverbs. 

Is there a verb, participle, an adjective, or another adverb in the 
section to which together belongs 1 No. Then, you must supply 
one. 

" But why not carry the word, ' together,' into some other sec- 
tion ?" Because the other sections are now full : they cannot 
receive it without injury to the sense of the whole period. 

[" They rode] (for two days) ( , , together.") 

[" They rode] (for two days) {which came, together.") 
" Together" is an adverb, relating to came, understood. 
The first step is to throw the sentence off into sections — this 
reduces the most complex period down to perfect simplicity. 

The next step is to see what parts of speech are in your imple- 
nary sections ; for this will tell you what parts must be supplied 
in order to parse those which are expressed. That is, if you have 
an adverb, and no verb in your implenary section, you will know 
that some verb must be supplied ; and the sense will tell what 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 50 

particular verb must be selected. If your implenary section has 
nothing but an adverb, the implied part of speech, which is neces- 
sary, is a verb — because it is the mechanical genius of the 
English language, that, when adverbs relate to adjectives, or to 
other adverbs, these adjectives or other adverbs are always ex- 
pressed. 

You must first divide the sentence into proper sections — for, 
unless this is done, you will not know whether your section is 
plenary y or implenary. 

" Cannot one tell from the sense ?" No — for there may be a 
mechanical ellipsis when the mind has attained the full sense of 
the period ; as, " He rode for two days together." 

None can misunderstand this — none can be incompetent to 
parse any word upon the ground of not having the full sense of 
the entire period. The ellipses is in the mechanical, not in the 
significant character. Hence it is, that no one can discover the 
mechanical ellipsis without throwing the period into its proper 
mechanical sections. 

I presume that no one can read this sentence, and not under- 
stand all its import, 

" In order to be a grammarian, I must be taught." 

Yet, although the sense is full, the mechanism is implenary : 
for, the word, " grammarian" cannot be parsed in this implenary 
state of the section. The division of the period into sections, 
will clearly show how many parts of the machine, are gone, and 
to what classes these absent parts belong ; and the sense will then 
determine what particular individuals of these classes must be 
supplied. 

(In order) ( , , to be a grammarian) [I must 

be taught ] 

The whole sentence comprises three sections — two of which are 
plenary. From one, there are two parts, or pieces gone — and 
these of course, are they which will aid in parsing the expressed parts 
which cannot now be parsed. " Grammarian" is an objective 
noun ; hence the part, or parts which are absent, must belong to 
the class of transitive verbs, or to the class of prepositions. The 
sense, however, shows at once, that no verb can be introduced. 
Therefore, the part which is understood, must belong to the class 
of prepositions. And it now devolves upon the sense to determine 
what individual of this class will supply the mechanical vacancy. 
Try with — 

(In order) {with to be a grammarian) [I must be taught.] 
But there is another part gone which should be supplied, 
(la order) (with me to be a grammarian) [I must be taught.] 



60 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

Though with supplies the mechanical vacancy in the machine ; 
it does not seem to be the word which the import of the sentence 
will admit. For instance, the sentence seems to be a chair, re- 
quiring a leg. Whereas, with appears to be a part of a very 
different machine. Insert for— 

(In order) (for me to be a grammarian) [I must be taught.] 

Or, 

(In order) (for me a Grammarian to be) [I must be taught.] 

The word, "grammarian," then, is an objective noun, put by 
apposition with me, understood. 

But, it may be said, that some other mode of parsing the noun, 
W grammarian ," may be found. 0, yes, surely. But is this some 
other mode the true one ? Those to whom I have spoken on the 
subject, have generally parsed this noun, in the first place, in 
the nominative case after be. The authority which has been 
cited is the remark, made by Mr. Murray : 

1. " The verb to be, through all its variations, has the same 
case after, as that which next precedes it." 

2. " Neuter verbs have the same case after them as before 
them." 

But this neuter verb happens to be in the infinitive mood, and 
it can have no nominative case, not even one after it : 
66 In order to be a Grammarian, I must be taught." 
In the second place, they have given the sentence this form : 
In order to become a Grammarian, I must be taught. 
Hence, those to whom I have given it, have found little, or no 
trouble in parsing the noun under consideration. They have all, 
even to a man, said that, 

" Grammarian" is a noun in the objective case, governed 
by the verb, become I But, as " become" does not mean to beau- 
tify, or adorn, in this place, it is a neutral verb, and it can have 
no objective case Thus, individuals twist, and turn, to appear to 
know what they do not know, to appear to do what they cannot 
perform. 

Becommend them to pay attention to English grammar — and I 
hear the following reply : 

Why — why, indeed, I have been teaching grammar for five 
years, for ten years, &c. / study the English language ? Why 
— I have studied the Latin ; and I teach it every day of my life. 
Plerique preceptores mera deliramenta pueris inculcant, tamen 
Dii boni, quern non ill i Pilgemonem, quern non Donatum prae se 
contemnunt? idque nescio quibus prsestigiis mire efficiunt, ut stul- 
tis maierculis et icliotis patribus tales videantur quales ipsise faciunt. 

Erasmus, 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM* 61 

TRANSLATION 

The greater part of preceptors teach mere fooleries to their 
boys ;. yet, good God ! what Palsemon, what Donatus, do they 
not despise in comparison with themselves 1 And I know not 
how they do it, but they make themselves appear to foolish 
mothers, and to idiot fathers, just such as they represent them- 
selves ! 

There is but one thing which throws the grammatical character 
of words beyond the reach of ail grammarians. This one thing is 
the absence of the parts with which the expressed words stand con- 
nected. To parse is to tell the connection of words — but how can 
the connection of a certain word be told, unless the words with 
which it stands connected, can be found I The first thing, then, 
in parsing these anomalies, as they are called, is to find the other 
words. This can never be done without the aid of Construing. 

I would not be understood, however, to say that a theoretical 
knowledge of Construing, will give a clear view of the structure 
of a sentence. I mean to say that Construing is the means, and 
the only means, by which this view can be acquired. The prin- 
ciples of Construing may be understood with much ease, and in 
a short time ; but the mechanical principles of the language can- 
not be learned without a close, and constant application of Con- 
struing to its mechanical structure. 

Words, for various reasons, are frequently omitted — and it is 
sometimes the case that whole sections are -left out of the sen- 
tence ; as, 

[I have some recollection] (of his father's being) ( , , 
, ) ( , & judge.) 

Here, in order to fill the last section, the absent one must be 
found. The reader cannot supply the absent section — hence, he 
cannot fill up the one in which "judge" is found — and as he can- 
not fill this section, he cannot parse the noun, "judge" 

I shall now make a few observations which, I trust, may 
enable all who read them, to manage such ellipses as I have 
exhibited in the above sentence. Brevity is the primary cause 
of almost every ellipsis with which we meet in the expression of 
thought. A desire for brevity, is so strong in man, that even the 
necessity of perspicuity, is sometimes hardly able to control it. 
Men, consequently, seize every occasion for the omission of words 
— and to speak of a few of these occasions, may shed a little light 
upon this important part of the subject of grammar. To embrace 
nearly all the instances in one remark, I will observe that, 

These occasions occur where the full, and correct sense may be 
perceived without a plenary state of the sentence. It now, how- 
ever, remains to be shown where this may happen. 

6 



62 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

It may happen in instances like this : 

1. [He drank] ( , last evening.) 

No individual can suppose that he drank the evening itself — 
hence, on may be omitted. 

2. ( , ) [Give , ( , me) some wine.] 

It is supposed that the person addressed, is present ; hence his 
name may be left out. Therefore John, or some other name, is 
omitted. It is unnecessary also to employ thou, after give — since 
" thou" would be merely the second call, or modification, which, 
in the first instance, is made, or given by a mere look from the 
speaker. To is omitted before me ; since the person addressed, is 
not supposed to be in mnch danger of putting the speaker into a 
wine glass, and thus treating him to himself instead of to wine ! ! 
The sentence filled up, 

(James.) [give thou (to me) some wine.] 

• ( ? ) [gi ye 5 ( j me) some wine. 

3. [He rode] (to town) ( , last week.) 

On is here omitted — for the sentence is as easily understood 
without, as with it. 

4. [He eat] ( , yesterday) (with his brother.) 

On is here omitted — since few would be liable 'to understand 
this sentence, even without this preposition, as meaning that yes- 
tei'day was the food eaten ! 

0. says the reader, these instances of ellipses are all clear ; I 
have learned them even from Mr. Murray's Grammar! Yes, you 
truly have learned these instances there — but have you learned 
the 'principles upon which these ellipses are permitted, there ? If 
you have learned the principles there or elsewhere, you can fill up 
any of the following ellipses : 

1. I have some recollection of my father's being ( , > 
, > )( , a judge.) 

» 2. [More , paid , ] (than , , ) ( 
, could get seats.) 

3. [They rode] (for two days) ( , , together.) 

2. (In order) ( , , to become a grammarian) 
[I must study \ ] (with diligence.) 

5. [He boasts] (of being) (,,,,,)( , a 
friend) (to his country.) 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 63 

. [They had an opportunity] (of viewing the scene) (tor , 
, ) ( > > ( ( a bove an hour.) 

[ic was handed] ( , a drink.) 

[They were taught] ( , grammar.) 

[They were willed] ( , a farm.) 

[They were denied] ( , their seats.) 

[I was told] ( , the truth.) 

[" He .was given] ( , a thousand pistoles.") 
[They were refused] ( , their seats.) 

[He was offered] ( , six dollars) (for his hat.) 
[He was asked] ( , a question.) 

[" I have a book] ( , to read.) 

[What , have you] ( , to do) (with me ?) 

N. B. Read, and do are both transitive verbs, and must have 
objects somewhere. 

Now, can you fill the above ellipses ? If you cannot, you must 
see that you are not a Grammarian. 

You may think that they who can parse the majority of sentences, 
found in English, are entitled to be ranked as grammarians. But, 
unless they can go much farther than this, they are no more gram- 
marians than any other persons that can read equally well with 
themselves, who have never attended to the process of parsing for 
one moment. Therefore, D. may have taught grammar for years, 
without having any more real knowledge of this art than any one 
who has never learned it farther than what he has acquired from 
spelling, reading, writing, conversing, and observing. Be sure, 
I), has more grammar names than the other person — but as names 
are nothing without ideas, one has just as much real knowledge as 
the other. D. can tell the connection of the words in the majority 
of sentences — and nothing more. So can the other — and in read- 
ing understandingly, he does connect the words of his sentences 
as accurately as J). It is by connecting the words that the true 
ideas are acquired ; and all who read understandingly, perform 
the operation in their minds. What great advantage, then, has D. 
over the other ! Why, simply this — D. can say that virtuous is 
an adjective, connected with -woman, whereas, the other can perform 
it in this way only 

Virtuous is a word connected with woman. 
" He writes very correctly." 



64 CLASS BOOK OV CRITICISM. 

D's. mode of parsing is this : 

He, is a pronoun — writes is a verb belonging to he— very is aa 
adverb, belonging to writes. 

The others mode is this : 

He, is a word — writes is a word, making sense with he-— very is 
a word, making sense with correctly — correctly is a word, making 
sense with writes. 

Now, what particular advantage has D's. mode over the other 
person's ? By both, the words receive their true connection. So 
far, then, as a capacity to connect words, constitutes a grammarian, 
D. is no more a grammarian than the other person. But perhaps 
D. can speak, and write the language with more propriety % 0, 
no ! It is not from the old grammars that one learns what is cor- 
rect English — hence, a man may use our language with as much 
propriety without the old grammar, as he can with it. Has any 
thing ever been learned from the Bule, 

" The verb must agree with the nominative case in number and 
person." 

Has this rule ever enabled one to use the verb with propriety t 
No — the examples which are given to illustrate the rule, leave the 
rule, and illustrate the relation between the verb, and its nomina- 
tive ? This i^ule in itself is nothing. And the moment you under- 
take to illustrate it, you leave the rule, and present the genius of 
the language. If, then, the language is illustrated by the examples 
which are intended to enforce. the rule, surely the language may be 
illustrated by the examples without the rule ! 

But to put the point to rest, I need only remark that this rule 
is so far from enabling one to use the verb with its nominative, 
with propriety, that he actually acquires the capacity for using it 
thus, from a long drill in correcting bad English ! 

SPECIMEN. 
INCORRECT. CORRECT. 

I writes* I write. 

We am,. We are. 

He runnest. He runs. 

They have xcrote. They have written. 

Of who. Of whom. 

With he. With him. 

This is the manner in which correct English is taught and 
learned. This can be carried on without technicality even better 



CLASS BOOK OF OfclMCISM* 65 

than'wish it. What advantage, then, I again ask, has the technical 
grammarian over him who knows nothing of these arbitrary namest 
None at all. 

Both can connect the words in a sentence, sufficiently well to 
acquire the true sense of the writer-^or at least, one can do this 
as well as the other. But when the parsing of the words, requires 
a further connection than is necessary to acquire the sense of the 
period, neither can do any thing ! 

So long as the sense acts as a pioneer to the mechanical con- 
nection of the words, any two men who can read equally well* 
are equally able to connect words in their true of^er^hence, one 
is as much entitled to the appellation, "Grammarian" as the other* 
A grammarian, in the proper sense of the term, is one who can 
extend his grammatical ken beyond that precise point where the 
sense ceases to give him light. Grammar is not the sense, but the 
mechanism of a sentence — and the sense may be clear where the 
grammatical mechanism is very obscure ; as, for instance — " Much 
as man desires, a little will answer him* 55 

Sentences require to be stated for grammatical solution as 
much as sums for arithmetical operation* The following are stated 
for solution ; 

" In order to be a grammarian, I must be taught." 

(In order) ( , > a grammarian to be) [I must 

be taught.] 

" He rode for two days together." 

Stated thus — [" He rode] (for two days) , , together.' 5 ) 

" O, 55 says the reader, "this part of the business I am completely 
up to ! Why, I have taught it for years ! I" 

Reader, I ask you, then, to state the sentences which follow, in 
a way which will enable you to parse the italic words, 

I. " He is virtuous and brave both" 

You will call "both" a conjunction. But will you tell what this 
conjunction connects % If you please, you may put the sentence in 
this form j 

1. "He is both virtuous, and brave. 5 * 

2. "Neither despise the poor, nor envy the rich. 55 

3. " As far as I am able to judge, this book is well printed. 55 

N. B. Should you say that as connects — "As far," and "lam^" 
I must dissent — you are wrong. 

6 # 



68 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

4i " Either she, or her sister must return ; or we cannot hear 
from town.' 5 

5. " He would neither do it, nor permit me to do it.' 5 

6. " And both Jesus and his mother were there." 

7. u Verily ', verily, I say unto you, he that entereth not by the 
door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same 
is a thief and a robber." 

8. " Much as man desires, a little will answer." 

All the marked words except verily, as, and much, will be called 
Conjunctions. What is a conjunction 1 "A conjunction con- 
nects," &c. 

What, then, do these conjunctions connect 1 Can you tell 
this, D. \ 

Now, it is possible that you have deceived yourself upon this 
subject — you may think that you have parsed the above words. 
What does the conjunction, both, connect % 

" James is learned, and wise both" 

As to the word, verily, I am sure that you fairly laugh at mo 
for giving it out. But, gentle reader, have you parsed it % You 
have called it an adverb very well — but to what verb does it 
belong ? Here is the rub ! And how, sir, have you parsed the 
word much ? This word bears the same relation in the sentence 
which little does, 

" Much as man desires, a little will answer." 

Reader, will you accept of another word % 

£C For never, since language thundered in the ear, or lightened 
in the mind, has there been a time more favourable to the intro- 
duction of improvement than the present. As to the works of my 
predecessors, the shortness of the time since their commencement, 
and the difficulties attending philological investigation, forbid a 
belief, that they have attained that degree of excellence to which 
our language may be carried." 

As will be called a conjunction — hence, I ask, what this con- 
junction connects. 

Should you reply that as connects the two periods, or sentences, 
I must tell you that as never connects two sentences — besides, the 
conjunction which connects the two sentences is and, understood. 
That you may not be deceived on this point, I will inform ycu that 
there is a whole section understood before asr, and that as connects 
this implied section, and the one which follows as. And as I have 



CLASS BOOiv OF CRITICISM. 67 

told you so much, I hope you will excuse me if I ask you to supply 
this section. And to aid you in this, I shall give the number 
of words in it. 

, , , , ] (as to the works) (of my prede- 

cessors) (the shortness) (of the time) (since their commencement,) 
(and the difficulties attending philological investigation, forbid a 
belief,) (that) (they have attained that degree) (of excellence) (to 
which) (our language may be carried.) 

Perhaps you will thank me for some little preparation which 
will aid you in parsing " much" 

, MuchJ (as man desires,) [a little will answer.] 

TLe reader, perhaps, will so far err as to fancy that I hold him 
obnoxious to my pen, for his inability to parse the words which 
have been given out in the above examples. I, however, acquit 
the reader, even if he is a teacher. I think that the Grammars 
are too defective to enable teachers to become Grammarians — and 
I acquit the Grammars, and their authors upon the ground that 
more time is necessary to give a correct, and full Grammar of our 
language than the old school Grammarians have given to the for- 
mation of the old theory of English Grammar. Perhaps no one 
among those who have attempted to form a Grammar upon the old 
principles, has given more than from six to twelve months to his 
compilation. It seems, high time, however, that a system should 
be introduced which will clearly and fully develope the constructive 
genius of our language. This system, / verily believe may be 
found in the Rational System of English Grammar. 

I have not undertaken this Class Book of Criticism under 
the expectation of being able to give in it, a full specimen of even 
one part of the Rational System. JN"or have I introduced the sub- 
ject of Construing to satisfy the expectations which I hope I 
have raised in the mind of the reader. I have introduced Con- 
struing merely to inform the reader that this is one of the parts 
of the Rational System. Connected with Construing there is a pro- 
cess which is denominated Sense Reoding. 

Sense Reading is the true Reading. 

Sense Reading is the reading of the two sections together which 
make sense together while the other sections of the sentence, are 
omitted : 

( , Much) (as man desires) [a little will answer.] 

Sections are divided into trunk and branch. 

1. The foundation of the sentence is the trunk section. 
Trunk, [a little will answer.] 

2. A branch is a branch section, a dependent section : 

BranchesA \ ' f u . ch -\ 
7 I (as man desires.) 



68 CLASS BOOK OF CfctTlCtSM. 

Ej giving the Sense Reading of the first branch in the sentence^ 
the reader will see what word should be supplied before much: 
Sense Reading : [A little will answer] ( , much.) 

That is, [A little will answer] (for much.) 
In the Rational system^ that word which is understood^ is called 
a no-e-ton* This word means what is perceived by the mind with- 
out the aid of the senses. A noeton, then 5 is that word 5 or that 
section) which the mind perceives without the aid of the eye, or 
ear ; as, 

"( ? much) (as man desires) [a little,will answer. 55 ] 
The mind perceives the for before much, although for is not 
presented to the mind through either eye, or ear. 
The doctrine of this ellipsis* is this : 
Jls, in the second branch, is substituted for which*, 
(For the much) [which man desires) [a little will answer.] 
For, and the are omitted because their insertion would mar the 
euphony of the sentence : 

{For the much) (as man desires) a [a little will answer.] 
But, when which is used, for, and the add to the euphony of the 
sentence— hence for and the are inserted when which is used : 
(For the much) (which man desires,) [a little will answer.] 

r • • 0r ' 

l_A little will answer] (for the much) (which man desires.) 

When which is used, for and the are expressed, because their 

omission would mar the euphony of the sentence as much as their 

expression would mar it when as is employed for which : 

(For Me much) (as man desires) [a little will answer.] 

( , much) (as man desires^) [a little will answer.] 

from hubbard's English grammar. 

1. [" What , have I , to do] (with thee ?") 

2. [" What , have you \ to say ?*'] 
8. [« I have a book , to read."] 

Mr. Hubbard is represented as a fine classical scholar— he is a 
teacher, and a clergyman. His Grammar was published in Balti- 
more, 1927 i and it is highly recommended by many learned men. 
• The following extract, taken from the letter of the Rev* Mr. 
Morrison, will show in what light Mr. Hubbard stands as a literary 
man : 

Baltimore, July 12th 1827,. 

•< I have attentively perused an English Grammar, written by 
A. 0. Hubbard. I had heard some time ago that he was about to 
publish a work of the kind * and, from what I knew of his peculiar 
qualifications for the undertaking — his habits of patient, and 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. , o9 

accurate research — and particularly his extensive as well as criti- 
cal acquaintance with the principles of language — I ~as expecting 
a happy result." George Morrison. 

I shall now repeat the above instances, and submit Mr. Hub- 
bard's remarks upon these, and similar constructions. 

1. " What have I to do with thee ?" 2. « What have you to 
say ?" 3. " I have a book to read." 

The author observes, 

" // is sometimes difficult to tell what the object of the verb, is, 
or whether it has any object at all /" 

Mr. Hubbard gives twenty examples where he admits that it is 
beyond his power to determine whether the verbs have any 
objects ! Of the twenty, three have been quoted. The learned 
author with all " his habits of patient, and accurate research," 
seems to work himself into a kind of literary passion, and con- 
cludes by saying, 

" Should the ingenious student ask the objects of to do, to say, 
to read, &c, we reply that they have no objects !" 

In this, however, Mr. Hubbard is as far from the truth as is 
the learned Mr. Kirkham, who defines rain to be a state of things ! 

Every verb which is'transitive in its nature, must be transitive 
in its construction in relation to other words. To say, to do, 
and to read are transitive verbs wherever they are used in the 
active voice. To do is to do something — to say is to say some- 
thing, and to read is to read something — for no one can do, say, 
or read without doing, saying, or reading something. And this 
something, be it what if may, is the object of the verb. 

1. " I have a book to read." 

That is, I have a book which to read. 

2. " What have I to do with thee 1 

That is, Have I any thing, or act, now in view, which I am 
about to do with thee ! - Which, understood, then, is the object 
of do. 

3. " What have you to say ?" 

That is, what have you, which you desire to say ? 

STATED THUS. 

1. [" What , have I , to do] (with thee ?") 

2. [" What , have you , to say ?"] 

3. [" I have a book , ' to read *"] 

FILLED UP. 

1. [" What tlmightLYe I which to do] (with thee ?") 

2. [" What thing have you which to say ?"] 

3. [" I have a book which to read."] 



70 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

But I may be told that the insertion of these words, mars the 
music of the language. This I grant of course ! And I add 
that there is no word that is understood, which, when expressed, 
does not injure the euphony of the sentence. For instance : 

" Let thou him to go, 5 ' 
Is not so agreeable to the ear as, 

"Let him go" — 
Yet, all grammarians admit that thou and to are understood ! 

" Give thou to me a cup of water." 
Is not so harmonious as, 

" Give me a cup of water" — 
Yet no grammarian has ever entered this musical plea against in- 
serting these words, in order to parse the verb, and pronoun ! 

Those words which have been tried, and condemned by the ear, 
and banished from the sentence for the crime of marring the 
euphony of the language, must be pardoned, and returned for 
the purpose of parsing the innocent words ! 

Language is not altogether a musical instrument ; it is, in 
part, mechanical. To prevent any marring of the music, these 
noeion parts are omitted. And to reveal the exact mechanism 
of the sentence, these parts are brought in. 

1. ["I have a book , to read."] 

2. [I have a book which to read.] 

3. [" The girl is called] ( , \ , , )'( , Jane.) 

4. [The girl is called] (by the name) (of Jane.) 

What parts are liable to be omitted to prevent any marring of 
the euphony ? Prepositions — indeed, all parts. 

Q. What prepositions are usually omitted in the implenary 
section ? 

A. To, for, in, with, of, concerning, about, and during. 

1. With. 

1. With is omitted where handed is used instead of served ; 
as, he was handed , a drink. That is, he was served with 
a drink. 

2. With is omitted where loilled is used instead of presented ; 
as, he was willed , a house, and lot. That is, he was pre- 
seated with a house, and lot. 

3. With is omitted where give is used in the sense of presented, 
favoured, or rewarded : as, " he was given , a hundred 
pounds for his land" — " he was given , an apple"-— 

That is " He was presented with a hundred pounds for his land.' 
le was presented with an apple." 



class book of criticism. 71 

2. In. 

In is omitted where taught is used instead of instructed; as, 
he was taught , grammar, Thai is 2 he was instructed in 
grammar. 

3, Of. 

Of is omitted where denied, or refused is used instead of de- 
prived ; as, The king was refused, or denied , his seat. 
That is, the king was deprived, or refused of his seat. 

The first objection which will be made to these examples, is 
that they are bad English ; because, as will be alleged, they are 
wrong in point of fact ! For, say the objectors, the person was 
not given — the pounds, and the appte were given to him ! 

My first, and weakest reply to this objection, is that grammar 
has nothing to do with facts : an absolute falsehood may be writ- 
ten in perfectly good English ! The earth has ceased to exist, is 
as good English as, the earth continues to exist ! 

An error in the fact, then, cannot be urged to show any defect, 
or disorder in the mechanism, or rhetoric of the sentence which 
makes the false assertion. But it has not yet been demonstrated 
that there is an error even in the fact. When one says, 

" He was given a cup of water," in what sense is given used 1 
Certainly, in the sense of favoured — " he was favoured with a 
cup of water." I ask, then, which was favoured, the person, or 
the cup of water 1 Was the water favoured or was the person ? 
There is, then, no error in point of fact ! 

But I am now told that give is never used in this sense. I ask, 
then, what one means, when he ssljs, 

" I was given a cup of water." 

Does he not mean that he was favoured with a cup of water 1 

" He means that he was served, or presented with a cup !" 

Very good, I shall, then, say, 

That with is omitted where give is used in the sense of seized, 
or presented ; as he was given , a cup of water. That is 
he was presented, or served with a cup of water ! 

Finally say my opponents, give should never be used in the 
sense of favoured, served, rewarded, or presented — hence the above 
examples in which given is used, are all improper English. 

But why should this word not be used in the sense of favoured, 
&c. ? Because, the dictionary import of the word, is against it. 
Sir, can you find a dictionary, which asserts that give should not 
be used in the sense of favoured, served, presented, or rewarded. ? 
You mean, sir, to assert nothing more than that the dictionary 
says nothing about this way of using give ! Therefore, the dic- 
tionary does not even attempt to condemn this use of the word. 
Bat you will say, that the dictionary affords no sanction to this 



72 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 



use of the word, give. This I grant— for it says nothing about 
this particular use of the word in question. I do not depend upon 
the dictionary for a sanction— I rely solely upon general practice 
in similar instances. Every scholar knows that words are often 
used in a sense of which dictionaries know nothing. For instance 
— the word, die, which according to the dictionary, signifies to 
expire, is used in the sense of to have, to meet, to obtain ; as, 

" Let me die the death of the righteous." 

That is, let me have the death, or meet, or obtain the death of 
the righteous. But if this word, die, in the above instance, is to 
be tried by the candns of the dictionary, the meaning of him who 
uses it, is obscure indeed ! 

The word live is used quite often in the sense of have, or lead • 
as, J 

« May they live lives of sobriety." 

That is, may they lead lives of this character. I might give 
thousands of instances— but they are unnecessary— two will show 
what I mean ; and the common observation of all, asserts that 
this principle is a general one— and adopted by the best, and 
poorest writer. If, then, the principle, that words may be used 
m a sense different from their strict dictionary import, is estab- 
lished, I call on my opponents to show that give forms an excep- 
tion to this general principle, and universal practice ! When they 
prove that this use of words, is not general— or when they admit 
that it is common, and show that give forms an exception, I 
shall be ready to yield. 

The nouns, therefore, which follow the verbs that are used 
in the sense of other words, must be parsed. But how is this 
to be done ? It is to be done, not according to the literal dic- 
tionary sense of these vicarious verbs, but according to their 
figurative, or borrowed sense ! The pupil throws his sentence off 
into different sections. This presents the plenary, and the im- 
plenary state of the sentence, 

[" He was given] ( , a cup) (of water." 
The implenary section contains an objective noun. Therefore, 
a transitive verb, or a preposition must be supplied. The sense is 
now to determine from which class this vacancy in the machine, 
is to be supplied — the sense is to do more — it is to ascertain what 
individual word will fill the vacancy. The sense of the sentence 
will not admit a verb of any kind — the vacancy must be filled, 
then, from the class of prepositions. And in order to ascer- 
tain which one of the whole class, will supply this ellipsis, 
the pupil must ask in what particular sense, the word, given, is 
used — because the preposition that should be supplied, is the very 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 73 

one which would be employed with that verb for which given is 
used. 

I have thus stated the substance of a few conversations which I 
have been permitted to hold with literary gentlemen, upon this 
point. In my conversations upon the subject of grammar, my 
position ha3 generally been that the pupil cannot parse the Eng- 
lish language with the little light afforded by teachers, through 
Mr. Murray's Grammar. And to sustain my position, I have, 
(among many other examples,) given the following, 

" He was given a dollar " 

To this my opponents have replied that, this construction is 
bad English ! The ground which they have generally taken, is 
that, he was not given ; but that the dollar was given to him. 
Still to the interrogation, is the following sentence good English 1 

" He was presented with a sword." 
They have uniformly replied, yes. 

Yet here is the same apparent want of truth*, which exists in 
the sentence, " he was given a dollar" They have pleaded, that 
he was not given, but that the dollar was given. Now, I plead 
that he was not given ; but that the sword was given. What, 
then, does this prove ? It proves this ; namely, that my oppo- 
nents have considered the first construction bad, merely on the 
ground that they are not able to parse the noun, dollar ; and that 
they have considered the last good, from the simple fact of finding 
a preposition which puts the noun in the objective case ! ! All 
should know that when words are used figuratively-, they must 
be parsed under figurative characters. All should recollect, 
that when one word is used in the sense of another, they are 
not to adhere to the literal import of the word so employed ; in 
this case, they are to be controlled by the import of the word 
for which the figurative one has been substituted. 

This work will very likely fall into the hands of many persons 
— and among them, I trust that not one will be found, who will 
be even disposed to charge me with any attempt to exhibit gram- 
matical skill, or to take any undue advantage of other writers. 
All the examples which I have presented in this chapter, have 
been given me by distinguished scholars. They were presented 
as anomalies. 

The following, I received from an officer of Princeton College : 
[" They rode] (for two days) ( , , together. 11 ) 
The following, from a teacher in the city of New York : 
(" In order) ( , , to be a grammarian,) [I must be 
taught."] 



74 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

This sentence, as said the gentleman from whom we received 
it, had been a subject for grammatical discussion, a number of 
times in the " Teacher's Society" " This society, 5 ' as remarked 
the gentleman, " has had the sentence upon its records for fifteen 
years ! Within this time they have frequently made attempts to 
parse the noun, grammarian — -but nothing has been done with 
this word, which has satisfied the society, or myself. And in- 
deed, 5 ' said he, " I have, in my house, twenty written solutions. 
of this word. The last which I received, is from the pen of Mr. 
Ingersoll." The gentleman to whom I refer is Mr. Forest — and I 
need not add that he was much 'pleased with my solution of this 
word. Have I, then, made too much fuss about these sentences r) - 
To this society, belonged some fine linguists. But, with all their 
knowledge of the Latin, Greek, French, and Hebrew, they were 
not able to parse the word, grammarian, as used in the fol- 
lowing sentence : 

" In order to be a grammarian, I must be taught. 55 

Why, then, should it be pretended that the Latin is a key to 
the mechanism of the English ? 

I have not written this chapter with a view to boast. If I 
know my own feelings, I derive no pride from my connection with 
this subject — I wish, yea, most heartily do I wish that this enter- 
prise had fallen upon some other one — something, however, has 
thrown it upon me ; and I am resolved to carry it as far as my 
ability will permit. I have not made this fuss about these two 
words, grammarian, and together, for the sake of their solution 
alone — I have brought them forward to show that, the words 
upon which the received system of Grammar sheds no light, 
may, by the Rational system, be clearly, and easily parsed. 
And I think that I have fully established this fact — yea, I have 
established more — for I have most conclusively shown that, with 
all the knowledge of the Latin, which the linguists of the age 
possess, these words have not been parsed. 

The gentleman from whom I received the following sentence, ia 
a great Latin, Greek, and Hebrew scholar: 

[" They rode! (for two days) ( 5 , together") 

With him, "together" was an adverb belonging to the prepo- 
sition, for ! Or, it was an anomaly / Yet, I assert, (under an 
expectation too, that he will soon see, and peruse this book,) that, 
with my solution, he was highly pleased. But there is no neces- 
sity that I should be confined to these instances — I can present thou- 
sands, and thousands ! How do all Grammarians parse the word ? 
when, in the following verse l 



CLASS BOOK Or CBJTOCISK. 75 

• And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before 
the sheep fellow him : for they know his voice." 

" When" is parsed as belonging to the verb putteth ! ! 

Xor does the so much vaunted Latin, and Greek enable one to 
'. and correct this error ? Not that we are opposed to the 
I itfuL and important study of the dead languages ! But it is 

in useless to ascribe to a knowledge of these languages, 
feats which they, who understand them, cannot perform ! It is 
injurious to the cause of science itself to impress the public mind 
with a belief that our own language can never be acquired through 
any other means than that of studying other tongues ! Besides, 
it brings a disgrace upon our language, of which every true Ameri- 
can should be ashamed ! If it was true, then should we bear 
with it, 

I know that a more copious, and free use of the words in our 
language, may be acquired through the means of studying the 
Latin, and Greek ; but I do know too, that the organization of the 
English language, can never be well understood from a knowledge 
of the anatomy of the Latin, and Greek ! The Corinthian archi- 
tecture of these, can never illustrate the Doric structure of 
that. 

The English, and the Latin, in mechanism, are almost totally 
distinct — bow, then, can one illustrate the other ? This so much 
vaunted doctrine creates its own confutation — for, if a knowledge 
of the grammar of the Latin, gives so clear, and so complete a 
view of the structure of the English, as some contend it does, 
why, I pray to be informed, will not a knowledge of the grammar 
of the English, give this clear, and complete view of the organiza- 
tion of the Latin ? 

That a knowledge of the dead languages, is of essential service 
in becoming acquainted with ancient literature, is not to be denied. 
That such knowledge is of vast service in the study of theology, 
:-:ne, and law, is too clear to admit of the least doubt ! Xor 
^ledge of these languages useless to any one — and all who 
can, should acquire it. But to assert that one cannot understand 
the mechanism of the English without a knowledge of these lan- 
guages, is to say that, no one can comprehend the structure of a 
BTj or a canoe, without learning it through the mechan- 
ism of a steam boat ! Ah ! is the Latin so much more like the 
English, than the English is like itself, that one cannot understand 
the English without the Latin ! ! What ! the true geography of 
America cannot be acquired without studying the maps of Lome, 
Greece. France, Spain. Germany, &c,, Sccl ! 

In the Latin, one short word may express as much, and the 
same, as a whole clause in English, For instance, the conjunction, 



76 CLASS BOOK OF CTtlTICISM. 

\d, is equal in sense to " in order that" in English. Hence, those 
who have undertaken to acquire a knowledge of the English 
through the means of the Latin, call "in order thai" a conjunction. 
And identity in sense is pleaded to sustain this strange solution, 
The sense, say these grammarians, is the same ! But it is not the 
sense which we are analysing— it is the mechanical parts which 
convey the sense — and we are to analyze them according to their 
mechanical structure. I believe that, if the grammar of a lan- 
guage, is the sense which it expresses when formed into periods, 
and books, the grammar of all languages, must be the same. Be- 
cause the sense of every language is the same- — for all nations 
have, so far as they have kept pace with each other, had the same 
ideas. But grammar is the mechanism of a language— and as dif- 
ferent nations have constructed their fences, walls, sleighs, carts, 
carriages, farming instruments, houses, &©., &c, differently, so 
they have formed their languages differently — hence, there is a 
difference in the grammars of different tongues. If the sense was 
to decide the grammatical solution, no, and not must be parsed in 
the same way ! « JYo man is here. ?? " There is not a man here.' 5 

jYo is an adjective, belonging to man. But not is an adverb, 
belonging to is / Whence this difference in the two solutions ? 
Surely not on account of a difference in sense I it arises from a 
difference in mechanical shape, and mechanical execution ! 

" Again — he writes with accuracy." 

" He writes accurately." 

The above two sentences convey the same sense ! Yet, in gram- 
matical structure, they are different ; and this difference is recog- 
nized in the mechanical solution. 

With is a preposition, relating to accuracy — accuracy is an objec- 
tive common noun, third person singular. But "accurately" is an 
adverb, relating to writes I Identity in grammar, is not to be 
established from the sense, but from the organization of the machi- 
nery itself! In the following verse, the sense of the section "by 
some other way," is expressed in Greek by the adverb, allachothen. 

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that entereth not by the 
door into the sheep-fold, but climbeth up ' by some other way,' the 
same is a thief, and a robber. " 

But how absurd would it be to call " by some other way " an 
adverb ! ! Not even one of the words in the whole clause, has 
any relation with the verb, climbeth ! By, some, and other are 
mechanically connected with way ; and way is a noun. The sense 
of this section unites with the sense of Q hut climbeth up^ and 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 77 

llius aids in the joint representation of the collective fact on which 
the entire verse is founded. 

1. The assemblage of words which can be taken out of the sen- 
tence, and parsed, or connected by themselves, can never be taken 
as one part of speech ! 

2. When an assemblage of two, or three words cannot be taken 
out of the sentence, and connected by themselves, it must be taken 
as one part of speech ; as, He went so as to see his mother. 

He writes as well as reads. 

In these instances, so as, and as well as, cannot be parsed, or 
connected individually, when they are taken out of the sentences. 
They are conjunctions, and are mechanically connected with the 
following parts of the sentences. But in the instance, 

u He went in order that he might see his mother." 

"In order" may be taken out of the sentence, and parsed with- 
out any mechanical connection with it. 

u In order ^ 

In is a preposition relating to order — order is an objective com- 
mon noun, third person singular. 

Before that, for is understood ; as, [" He went] (in order) (Jbr 
that) (he might see his mother.' 5 ) 

That in the old system is called a conjunction. Now, this word 
bears the same constructive relation in a sentence which it bears. 
But it is called a pronoun : as, it is said that he is in the city. 

Here it is parsed as a pronoun representing the clause, he is in 
the city. It, and thai, however, mean the same thing — they are 
synonymous. It is said — what is said? that. 

It is from these remarks clearly seen why it is that " with accu- 
racy" cannot be taken as an adverb upon the ground that it 
expresses the same idea which is denoted by accurately ! 

But if the Latin, and Greek are so very effectual in developing 
the true organization of our language, how does it happen that 
they who depend solely upon these languages, are more deficient 
in the particular anatomy of our language than they who rely 
entirely upon Mr. Murray's English Grammar 1 

And finally, how does it happen that all are so deficient in the 
mechanical solution of our language ? It arises from the fact that, 
neither the Latin, Greek, German, French, Spanish, nor even our 

7* 



78 CLASS BOOK 0$ CRITICISM. 

English Grammars are suited to the eccentric mechanism of the 
English language, Haye they who have written Grammars suc- 
ceeded in parsing our language ? Surely not. Let us see Mr. 
Kirkham's success* 

INTRICACIES UNFOLDED, 

Under this head Mr. Kirkham gives the following sentence, with 
many others equally simple both in sense? and mechanism? 

16 He that formed the ear, can he not hear t" 

The learned auther proceeds to unfold the intricacy of this con- 
struction ! And, in doing it, I think that he turns both the sense, 
and mechanism into mystery! He supplies can hear ; thus : 

< ; He that formed the ear, can hear, can he not hear t n 

This sentence comprises two sections : 

[" He, (that formed the ear,) can he not hear ?"] 

The first he is the nominative to can hear? it being synonymous witfe 
the second. The sentence is framed in conformity to the Hebrew. 
The true meaning of the sentence, may be better seen, from the 
use of vjhat — What ! he? that made the ear? can he not hear t 
But, bless me, how the sentence pines away under this simplifying 
burden? 

" He that formed the ear, can hear, can he not hear ? ?? 

Now, Mr* Kirkham is quite a grammarian upon the old plan. 
But neither he, nor any other compiler of Grammars upon the 
British scheme, can grapple even with common English sentences. 
Is not this true ? Untrue as it may seem, I pledge myself to 
prove that not only is Mr. Kirkham incompetent to this task, but 
that our distinguished scholars have not the mental sinews to 
wrestle with these giants which have hitherto been nicknamed, 
anomalies? idioms, and eccentricities. 

I would not be understood, however, to ascribe the incapacity 
to the learned, in any other way than through an incompetency in 
the system, by which they have been taught ! They were taught 
when young ; and, of course, when they were not equal to the 
task of detecting, and correcting those errors which came to them 
under the seal of antiquity? and the sanction of custom ! They 
are now, however, able? and free — let them, therefore, examine 
the ground of the above position ! If they find it firm? let them 
not condemn, but applaud me for placing my feet upon it. I beg 
them to throw aside their prejudices against new things, and their 
objections to the mode in which I come forward— modesty is proper 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 79 

in its proper place — »I desire to provoke investigation ! I have not 
yet come to the slavish hypocritical practice of bowing,' scraping, 
Cringing, and fawning, to induce teachers to introduce the 
Eational System ! Let the dealers in dim gold* adopt this 
course — as for myself, I am resolved never to disgrace the truth 
by this sort of auctioneering scheme I If my country dislikes my 
frankness, and condemns my ardour, let her reject me, and my 
work together — I will suspend my fate upon the mercies of a God,, 
and seek consolation in an attempt, yea in a fruitless attempt, to 
serve one of his favoured people ! If the patient takes umbrage 
at the ardour, and solicitude of his physician, let him reject the 
remedy, and rankle in disease ! 

How do they who teach by the British system, par&e when, till? 
after, as, &c, 5 in the following, and similar constructions : 

" And when the Lord saw her be had compassion on her* and 
said unto her, weep not," 

In this instance, when is denominated an adverb* qualifying 
Saw, 

That is, when is an adverb, showing at what time the Lord saw 
her I This, however, is not the construction 5 nor is it the sense* 
It is not the intention of the writer to show at what time the Lord 
saw the woman. It is his intention to say that he had compassion 
on her at the very time of his seeing her* The sense gives the 
following construction : 

[And the Lord had compassion when] (he saw her.) 

[" And when (the Lord saw her) he had compassion^ (on her*) 
(and said) (unto her*) (weep not."} 

In this verse there are four verbs* namely, saw, had, said, and 
Weep. Now* when is employed to point out the time of one of 
these four events— and the question is, which. The leading idea 
of the sentence, so far as time is concerned, seems to be the por- 
tion within which the Lord had compassion. Take a similar 
case : 

1. " When three o'clock comes, they will dine. 9 ' 

2. " When the Lord saw her be had compassion." 

Is when employed in the first sentence to show at what time 
three o'clock will come I 

If, then* when is not used in the first case to show the time 
of the event expressed by comes, it is not in the second for pointing 
out the time of the event expressed by saw. 

Thrown into sections, 

1. [When (three (o'clock) comes) they will dine.~j 



80 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

Or, 
\They will dine when] (three (on the clock) comes.) 
2. [When (the Lord saw her) hk had compassion, ,] 
[The Lord had compassion when] (he saw her.) 
Again : 

<; John, when will you pay your bill f 9 
[" When (my ship arrives) I will pay it."} 

Observe* — the question here is, at what time John will pay, 
John employs a word in his answer which denotes time. And the 
question is, whether this word of time 5 is intended to qualify will 
pay. Why, if " when" does not belong to will pay, John's reply 
is not an answer to the interrogation. The interrogation is, 

" John, at what time will you pay your bill V 9 

The reply is, 

« When (my ship returns) / will pay it." 

And yet those who teach the grammar of the very language in 
which this reply is made, inform their pupils that when is an ad- 
verb qualifying returns. Thus forcing John, in his attempt to 
tell when he will pay his bill, to leave the question which he in- 
tends to answer., and to inform us when his ship will return ! The 
invariable rule seems to be that, " An adverb is a part of speech 
added to a verb!" To parse the word, when, then, it is only 
necessary to call it an adverb, and connect it with some verb — 
and, as returns is the nearer verb of the two-, when, of course, is 
connected with returns! 

[And when (the Lord saw her,) he had compassion] (on her,) 
(and said) (unto her,) (weep not.) 

And is it possible that children are taught to call when, as 
used in this case, an adverb, qualifying saw ! Even so • and 
worse> as I shall soon show. What says the distinguished Kirk- 
ham upon the word, again 1 Let him speak for himself. Kirk- 
ham's Grammar, p. 87. 

" My friend has returned again — but his health is not very 
good. 95 

" Again is an adverb, a word used to modify the sense of a 
verb, of time indefinite, it expresses a period of time not precisely 
defined." 

Thus this simple word, again, which has never been employed 
to denote any portion of time whatever, is defined by an author 
of a very popular English Grammar, to mean ;c a period of time"] ! 
" A period of time^not precisely defined," ! " My friend has re- 
turned again" 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 81 

Does not again here mean repetition ? Is it here used to show 
at what time he returned ? If the author of a Grammar defines 
words in this way, can much be expected from those who teack 
from his book ? 

But to turn to when " again /" Now, if I may be permitted 
to incorporate an attempt to account for a disease with my essay 
to demonstrate its existence, I would say that it has come from 
the untenable position that the words which mark that portion of 
time within which two,or more events happen, may belong to either 
of the two verbs which express these events. This doctrine of 
option being taken for a sound principle, nothing but that con- 
venience which arises from nearness, has governed the grammarian 
in his solution of when, and similar instances. When speaks of 
an indefinite point of time — and to supply the deficiency of when, 
in particularity, some event, the time of which is well known, is 
introduced into the sentence ; as, 

" When the mail returns, we shall get our papers/' 

Now, the time of the mail's return is well fixed — hence this 
event is used to show what particular portion of time is denoted 
by " when" And as the portion of time denoted by when is thus 
made to be the very point of time on which the arrival of the 
mail takes place, Grammarians have concluded that when shows 
the time of both events. And it is true that when is made to 
take hold on the very point of time within which both events 
are located. But, then, when does not seize this point of time, 
and hold it up before our eyes to say to us at what time the 
arrival of the mail is to take place, but to inform u-s within what 
portion of time the procuring of our papers will come into exis- 
tence. The question as to what time it is within whioh the 
mail returns, is supposed to be fixed by habit, or custom in ad- 
vance. This must be the case to make the allusion to the event, 
effectual in rendering when definite in respect to the time which 
it points out. Is when, then, introduced to show the time of an 
event whose time, custom, habit, or practice, had before defined ] 

In the first of the following constructions, when is said to be- 
long to shall get; in the second, to returns. 

1. We shall get our papers when the mail returns. 

2. When the mail returns, we shall get our papers. 

Suppose two men, I), and B., to fix by chance, or otherwise? 
upon the same hour of the day, within which to do two distinct; 
acts. 

1. D. promises as follows : 

" I will pay you a hundred dollars at ten o'clock to-doy^ 



82 class book: of criticism. 

2. B. promises as follows : 

" I will walk with you to town to-day at sixty minutes after 
nine J' 

Can it be said that the words, ten o'clock, uttered by D., have 
any bearing upon the verb, will walk ? The phrase, ten o'clock, 
certainly means the very portion of time within which B. has 
placed his act of walking. But does it follow because words of 
time, uttered by different persons, to restrict different acts, 
specify the same portion of time, that the words so uttered, have 
a constructive relation with the verbs employed by these different 
persons to express these different events ? 

D. " I will pay you a hundred dollars at ten o'clock to-day." 

"At ten o'clock" 

B. " I will walk with you to town to-day, at sixty minutes 
after nine." 

" At sixty minutes after nine." 

Can it be pretended that the section, " at ten o'clock," has any 
frame-work connection with the section, "I will walk J" 

Or can it be pretended that the section, " at sixty minutes past 
nine," has any frame-work relation with the section, " I will pay 
a hundred dollar's V y 

Here, then, yni have two phrases, both denoting the same 
point of time; and two events, both taking place within this 
one portion of time ; yet the two phrases, denoting time, 
belong to their respective events. 

But it may be said that these two phrases of time fall into 
different sentences, and that they may have been uttered in 
different countries. Then, let us, bring them into the same 
country, into the same book, and even into the same sentence, 

D. " I will pay you, B., one hundred dollars to-day at ten- 
o'clock, if you will walk to town with me, to-day at sixty minutes 
after nine." 

Before I dismiss these words, it may not be amiss to say that 
Goold Brown has advanced the doctrine that these adverbs, with 
some others, belong to both verbs ! Hence the word, when, in 
the sentence, 

" I will pay my bill when my ship arrives," 
Is denominated an adverb qualifying vjill pay, and arrives I ! 

It may not be. improper to observe here also that the compiler 
styles these words conjunctive adverbs ! ! This classification is 
intended to recognize the connecting influence which these adverbs 
exert in keeping up a relation between two main parts of the 
sentence. And upon a first look, this will seem to many a 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 83 

M lucky hit." But, whether they who have examined the subject 
of grammar so thoroughly that they have found that nouns, verbs, 
articles, pronouns, participles, and interjections, connect as much 
as when, and the compiler's other conjunctive adverbs, will be 
much tickled with this ingenious classification, I cannot say with 
so much certainty. 

" When the mail returns we shall get our papers." 

True, on omitting the ligature, when, the frame-work of the 
sentence tumbles into instant ruin- — or as printers would say, into 
pi. And as the frame-work is held together by when, when is 
called a conjunctive adverb. But, before I can give my assent 
to this classification, I must be satisfied that I may not have upon 
this principle, conjunctive nouns, conjunctive verbs, conjunctive 
articles, conjunctive pronouns, conjunctive participles, and con- 
junctive interjections ! 

ILLUSTRATION. 

1. " John has a book." 

2. has a book. 

Here the omission of the noun, John, breaks down the frame- 
work of the sentence. Hence, John is a conjunctive noun ! 

1. " John has a " 

What, has the old frame tumbled again ! Indeed it has. Book, 
then, is a conjunctive noun ! According to Goold Brown it is . 

" John a book." 

What, down again ! Has is a very strong connector indeed — 
it must be a conjunctive verb ! 

1. That is the pupil who writes so well." 

Does not who connect the two members of this sentence as 
much as when does those of the following ? 

2. " When the mail returns, we shall get our papers." 

1. That is the pupil writes so well. 

2. the mail returns we shall get our papers. 
1. When, a conjunctive adverb! 

Who, a conjunctive relative pronoun ! 
Again. These are the very men. 
These are very men I 
Thus it Is seen that the is a conjunctive article ! 



81 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM, 

Again. He laboured an hour. 
He laboured hour ! 

« An," then, is an indefinite conjunctive article ! 

And again. John is writing letters. 
John is letters ! 

Writing is an imperfect conjunctive participle !* 

I must now dismiss Mr. Goold Brown for a while. 

I deem it somewhat important, to show in what way the word, 
verily, is parsed in the following verse : 

" Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that entereth not by the 
door into the sheep-fold, but climbeth up some other way, the 
same is a thief, and a robber." 

Verily, and verily, are parsed as adverbs, belonging to say. 
Thus conveying the idea that the author of this verse, which he 
addressed to a present audience, desired to convince his audience 
that he was actually speaking to them ! 

This adverb, verily, has no bearing either in sense, or mechan- 
ism upon the verb, say. Both words belong to a different section, 
and, in sense, and construction, are connected with the verb, is — 

« Verily, verily he is a thief, and a robber." 

It is this proposition which the speaker wishes to enforce. 

I shall now throw this verse into sections. 

" (Verily, verily, [I say] funto you) he (that entereth not) (by 
the door; (into the sheep-fold) (but , climbeth up) ( , 
some other way) ( , , ) (the same , ) is) (a 

thief,) (and , , ) (a robber.") 

[I say] 

(Verily, verily, he is) (a thief,) 

(and he is) (a robber,) 

(unto you) 

(that entereth not) 

(by the door) 

(into the sheep-fold) 

(but that climbeth up) 

(by some other way) 

(who is) (the same person.) 

But it may be pretended that those who have so very recently 
attempted to mend Mr. Murray, have found a better way of pars- 

* The same compiler denominates the present participle, the imperfect 
participle ! 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 85 

ing the constructions which I have here been presenting. Hence T 
feel bound to examine their method of solution as they themselves 
apply it to similar instances. 

CONSTRUCTIONS SAID TO BE OF DIFFICULT SOLUTION. 

I. From Bullions's English Grammar, p. 82. 

" In sentences of this kind, the infinitive mood and participle 
are often used for the name of the action, or state, or affection ex- 
pressed by the verb ; as, To profess (professing) regard, and to act 
(acting) differently, mark a base mind. Here it is to be observed 
that the infinitive and participle are really abstract nouns 'perfectly 
indefinite in their application, there being no particular subject to 
which the action may be referred" 

1. Why are these words abstract nouns ? Because they express 
actions which belong to no agent ! 

But are there any actions which have no agents ? Can the act 
of professing be done without some one to do it ! \ 

2. Why are these words perfectly indefinite in their application? 
Because there is " no particular subject to which the actions may 
be referred ! ! There is a particular subject to which these ac- 
tions belong : For a human being " to profess regard, and for 
him to act differently, mark a base mind." 

Can this proposition refer to any thing for its subject but a 
human being ? The act of professing, and that of acting are not 
perfectly indefinite, then ! ! These acts are ascribed to a human 
being. But because the sentence does not decide to what human 
being they belong, Mr. Bullions declares them to be perfectly in- 
definite in their application ! J Upon this principle, the verb, in 
the following sentence, is perfectly indefinite in its application : 

" A human being died last evening." 

Who died? A human being. Yet says Mr. Bullions, the act 
of expiring, expressed by died, cannot be ascribed to any subject, 
to any agent — hence died is an abstract name perfectly indefinite 
in its application! ! 

II. From the same page. 

" If the infinitive, or the participle of the verb, to be, or of a 
passive verb of naming, &c, is used in this way without a definite 
subject, the substantive which follows it as a predicate, receives the 
same indefinite character ; it is neither the subject of a verb, nor 
is under the regimen of any word ; Thus, His being an expert 
dancer, does not entitle him to our regard." " This will be 
allowed to be a correct English sentence, complete in itself, and re- 
quiring nothing to be supplied." The phrase, " being an expert 



86 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

dancer," is the subject of the verb, " does entitle ;" but the word, 
" dancer" in that phrase, is neither the subject of any verb, nor is 
governed by any word in the sentence. 

" His being an expert dancer does not entitle him to our regard." 

The learned author pronounces this a correct sentence — 
" complete in itself, requiring nothing to be supplied." Yet he 
says that " dancer" has no case ! " Dancer" is not the subject 
of any verb — hence it is not in the nominative — it is not the object 
of any verb or preposition — hence it is not in the objective! " 

Here, then, is a correct English sentence which has but two 
nouns, — and one of these can not be parsed because no case can 
be found for it ! ! 

This sentence, which the old school Grammarians pronounce 
good, is shamefully bad. 

" His being." Whose being ? why, his ! his is no one at all ! 
He is some one — but his is a gentleman who is very little known, 
except to Murray menders ! His being an expert dancer, does 
not entitle him to our regard ! But, I will not waste time in 
amusement. I will correct the sentence, and leave it. 

His expertness in dancing does not entitle him to our regard. 
(Eule 1., Book I., p. 130.) 

" Of this kind," says the author, are all such expressions as 
the following : # 

1. " It is an honour to be the author of such a work." 

2. " To be virtuous is to be happy." 

3. u To be surety for a stranger is dangerous." 

4. " JYot to know what happened before you was born, is to be 
always a child." 

5. " The atrocious crime of being a young man, I shall neither 
attempt to palliate or deny." 

6. "He was not sure of its being me" 

7. " Its being me needs make no difference in your determina- 
tion." 

8. I took it to be him. 

That/or is understood before him will be obvious to all who 
give the subject a moment's careful reflection. 

1. " I took it for good money." 

2. " He was taken up for dead." 

3. I take you to be a gentleman. 

Why is for omitted in the third instance ? 

* Such is here improperly used. 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 87 

The insertion of to be requires for to be omitted. 

Tbe sense, which is the grand rule of judging, is the same 
with/or, which it is without for. When the half section, to be, 
and the preposition, for, are both expressed, the ear is offended — 
and to please this organ, for, or to be is generally omitted. 

1. " I take you for a gentleman. 5 ' 

2. " I take you to be a gentleman." 

1. " I take you for to be a gentleman." 

2. " I take you for a gentleman to beP 

The insertion of every implied word, substracts from the music 
of the sentence. 

1. " It is an honour to be the author of such a work." 
According to Mr. Bullions, the word, author, has no case ! It 
is not in the nominative, because it is not the subject of a verb — 
it is not in the objective, because it is neither the object of a verb 
nor preposition. Mr. Bullions is in error — the word, author, is 
in the objective case after as, or for, understood. This is obvious 
from the construing of the sentence : 

[It is] (an bonour) ( , , , to be) ( , the 

author) (of such a work.) 

Plenary : 

[It*s] (an honour) (for a man to be) (as the author) [of such a 
work.] 

Should any one object to the use of as, I should endeavour to 
please him with for. 

[It is] (an honour) (to a man to be) (for the author) (of such a 
work.) 

The objector may say that I have not consulted his ear in this 
use of as, and for ; but he can not say tbat I have disregarded 
his judgment. The word, as, as here used, is synonymous with 
for where for signifies in the character of. Hence the objector 
must ascertain the exact character of tbe idea before he can adopt, 
or reject these words. 

The word, author, is nearly synonymous witb the syllabane, 
character of. It is said tbat the world is a stage, and men, and 
women actors. Hence each one must be a character in the great 
play. The characters in the play, are various, and distinguished 
by different names : some are denominated lawyers ; some, doctors ; 
some, merchants : some, cobblers ; some, makers; some, compilers , 
some, authors, &c, &c. 



88 CLASS BOOK OF CIIITICISM. 

Where euphony will allow, as, or for, is expressed before the 
character name of the various actors ; as. 

1. " John came as & prophet." 

2. " I took him for a merchant." 

3. " He took you for an author." 

4. " He received the bill as good money" 

5. " That man went as a servant." 

6. " He was taken up for dead." 

But where euphony will not allow the expression of as, or for, 
either, as, or for, is understood ; as, 

1. " I thought him to be ( , a merchant") 

2. " He took it to be ( , him.") 

3. "It is an honour to be ( , the author) of that book. 53 

1. [I thought him to be] (for a merchant.) 

That is, I took him for a merchant, in the character of a mer- 
chant 

2. [He took it to be] ( , him) 
That is, he took it for him. 

3. [It is] (an honour) ( , , , to be) ( > 
the author) (of such a book.) 

[It is] (an honour) (for a man to be) (for the author) (of such 
a book.) * 

That is, it as an honour for a man to exist in the character of 
the author of such a book. 

That is, it is an honour for a man to play the character of author 
of such a work. 

Where to be is employed, euphony requires the non-expression 
of as, and for ; as, 

I took you to be him. 

That is, I took you for him. Or, — I took you as him. That 
is, I once knew a certain character on the stage of life — -and I 
took you as the very character. 

2. " To be virtuous is to be happy." 

Here, say the old school Grammarians there is nothing to be — 
hence be, and virtuous, belong to no subject ! They say too that, 
as there is nothing to be happy, be and happy belong to no subject. 
What ! is there virtue enough to make one happy, and yet no one 
to be virtuous — and none to be happy ! 

This is indeed mysterious ! 

To be virtuous is to be happy* ' 



CLASS BOOK OF C&ITICtSM. 89 

Perhaps nature has not left things in this way. And I verily 
believe that the English language which is generally true to nature, 
does not express them so : 

" To be virtuous is to be happy." 

That is, for a man to be virtuous, is for him to be happy* 
Be, and virtuous belong to man, understood — and be, and happy 
to him, understood. 

3. " To be surety for a stranger is dangerous." 

It is said that the word, surety, has no case, and that be has no 
subject. But be relates to man, understood, and surety is the ob- 
ject of the preposition, as, or for, implied : 

For a man to be, as surety for a stranger, is dangerous. 

That is, for a man to exist in the character of surety for a 
stranger is dangerous. 

" Surety" itself is a character name : 

1. "He was taken as surety for his friend." 

2. " The magistrate took this man for their surety in both 
cases." 

For a man to be for surety for a stranger, is dangerous. 

Will it be said that as the expression of for is prejudicial to 
the euphony of the sentence, for can not be understood ? The 
expression of any word which is understood, is hurtful to the 

euphony : 

1. " He was offered with a dollar for his knife." 

2. I heard him to sing. 

3. Gret thou for me a book. 

1. He was offered a dollar for his knife. 

2. I heard him sing, 

3. Get me a book. 

4. " Not to know what happened before you were born, is to be 
always a child." 

" Know has no subject — and child has no case !" 

For you not to know what had happened before you were born, 

is for you to be always as a child. 

Know belongs to you, understood 3 and child is in the objective 

case after as, implied. 

5. « The atrocious crime of being a young man, I shall neither 
attempt to palliate, or deny." 



W CLASS BOOK OF CRlTlClSMa 

".Mm-" is said to be without a case : and being without a sub- 
ject, a nominative noun. 

The atrocious crime of being as a young man, I shall neither 
attempt to palliate, nor deny. 

That is, the atrocious crime of being in the character of a young 
man* 

True, being has no subject— and this renders the sentence bad* 
And, although the old school Grammarians pronounce the sentence 
good English, I yerily believe it bad. What*, can that frame-work 
be perfectly accurate, good, which does not afford supers for its 
various subs ! t Can the hand be pronounced perfect, complete, 
that does not furnish a finger for each finger nail ! 1 " Being" is 
a nail which has no finger— hence the sentence is bad. 

1. The atrocious crime that I am & young man I shall neither 
attempt to palliate nor deny. [Rule IX., Book I., p. 130.] 

I apprehend that this construction expresses with exactness 
what Pitt himself meant* But his own expresses more than he 
intended : 

" The atrocious crime of being a young man" 

This construction makes it a crime to be young, which, I think, 
is more than he meant* If, however, he meant what his own im- 
proper construction intimates, I would substitute the following : 

The atrocious crime that a man is young, I shall neither attempt 
to paliate nor deny. 

But the sentence would read better if amended as follows : 

I shall neither attempt to palliate, nor deny the atrocious crime 
of my youth* 

6. " He was not sure of its being me." 

This is grossly improper. Yet Mr. Bullions attempts to sus- 
tain it* 

Corrected : 

He was not sure that it was I. (Rule XXVI., Book II., 
p. 157.) 

Nor is this any better : 

7. u Its being me needs make no difference in your determination." 
The fact that it is I should make no difference in your determi* 

nation* (Rule L., Book II., p* 171.) 

I. From Goold Brown* s Grammar, 

Verbs of declaring, of making, and of naming^ are often fol- 
lowed by two objectives by apposition \ as, Thy saints proclaim 
thee King, The author of my being formed me man, And Grod 
Galled the firmament heaven, 



CLASS BOOK OF ClUTiClSM. 01 

" Verbs of declaring, and verbs of making," is neither English, 
nor sense ! Of imports source; as ? a hat made of good wool. 

But is there a word in any language, which is made of making 1 

Verbs which express the acts of declaring, making, and naming, 
is both English and sense. 

Mr. Brown is not only grossly incorrect in his language, but 
remarkably erroneous in his doctrine. 

" Thy saints proclaim thee kingP 

The word, king, which he says is in the objective case, and 
governed by proclaim, is in the objective, and governed by of, 
understood. 

[Thy saints proclaim thee] ( , , , ) ( , king.) 
[Thy saints proclaim thee] {by the name) [of king.) 
That is, thy saints publish thee {by the title) {of king.) 

2. " The author of my being formed me man.''' 

" Man" is not the object of formed. This construction would 
be a shameful perversion of the sense itself : 

L The author of my being formed mb. 
2. The author of my being formed man, 

u Man" is used to show the character which God gave to me* 
The author of my being formed me for man.* 
3. " And God called the firmament heaven" 

[And God called the firmament] {by the name) {of heaven.) 

No verb can have more than one nominative ; nor can any verb 
have more than one objective noun* There is no verb which can 
bear any relation to more than two nouns, or two pronouns, or 
one noun, and one pronoun, in the same sentence. 

Instances like the following, do not subvert the truth which is 
here advanced : 

["Paul , , ] (and Silas sang praises) to God. 55 
2. [" They buried Annanias'] (and , , his wife.") 

[See page 68.] 

II. From Goold Brown's Grammar. 

" We sometimes find a participle that takes the same case after 
as before it, converted into a verbal noun, and the latter word re- 
tained unchanged in connection with it ; as, He has some recol- 

* In the character of man. 



9i class bogic oi 1 CiiixicisM* 

lection of bis father's being a judge." a The noun after the ver- 
bal, is in apposition with the possessive going before.' 3 ' 

That is, the word, judge, is in apposition with the word father's! 

" We sometimes find a participle that t&kes the same case after as 
before it, converted into a verbal noun." 

" Being" is a participle of this kind : 
" He has some recollection of his father's being a judge" 
" Being" says Mr. Brown, is a verbal noun which takes the 
same case after as before it. 

What case is before being ? the possessive : father's ! 
What case is after being ? the possessive : judge ! ? 

So says Mr. Brown, and that too, in his finished labours ! 
father's being a judge ! I ! ! ! 

A disgrace to the age in which we live — that the slimy eel like 
the serpent of old, should attempt, while yet in his native mud, 
to raise his head with the words of knowledge in his mouth. 
" Yerbs of making" — judge, in the possessive case, in apposition 
with father's — and both connected with a verbal noun ! ! 

" He has some recollection of his father's being a judge." 

This construction, which is obviously bad, may be corrected by 
Kule L., Book II., p. 171. 

He has some recollection that his father was a judge. 



I. From Bradford Frazee's Grammar. 

u Be it enacted. 5 ' Here the verb is in the imperative mode, 
and " it" is the nominative, and stands for the whole section or 
act spoken of. (p. 135.) 

The author of this singular manner of parsing the word, it) 
would have conferred a favour upon me, had he given the foun- 
dation of this solution. And, as his book abounds in foundations, 
I am somewhat surprised that he has given none in this instance ! 
Perhaps he has built here without a foundation, from a want of 
suitable timber ! 

If " be" is a verb in the imperative mode, to whom is the com- 
mand addressed? Is "it" which Mr. Frazee says, is the nomina- 
tive to be, commanded to be enacted ! 1 Really, Mr, Frazee pays 
a high compliment to legislatures : he says that they command 
their laivs to be enacted ! ! 



CLASS BOOK Oi 1 CRITICISM. 93 

"Beit enacted" Here the verb is in the imperative mode, 
and the pronoun, it, is in the nominative, and stands for the whole 
act, or section ! 

As Mr. Frazee has erected this superstructure without a foun- 
dation, he will not be surprised to find the whole in ruins ! This 
verb is not in the imperative, but infinitive, mode : 

" Be it enacted." That is, Let it " be enacted." 
Construing. 
[Let , it , be enacted.] 
Let ye it to be enacted. 



II. From Frazee's Grammar. 

" Foundation of Note II." 

" Manner or degree may be predicated of relation." 
" Hence, 

"Note II." 

" Adverbs sometimes belong to prepositions 3 as, He is far 
from home." 

Does it follow because manner, or degree, may be predicated 
of relation that far qualifies from ! ? Can the import of from be 
modified ! ? 

" He is far from home." 

From separates the man from his home. 

And does jfar aid from in this work of separation 1 

The man exists far from home. 

a J7 ar » indicates where this process of existing takes place : 

1. He exists far away. 

2. "He exists far from home." 

3. He died far from home. 

Does not far place these acts, exists, and died a considerable 
distance off! Far, then, has a relation with is, exists, and died. 

If from can be influenced by adverbs, every other preposition 
can be. 

1. "He went almost to Ovid." 
1. "He went to Ovid." 

That almost qualifies went is obvious from the fact that it stops 
the action this side of Ovid, 



94 CLASS BOOK OP CRITICISM. 

1. " He went not to Ovid, but to Bristol." 

" Not qualifies went : not turns the action from Ovid." 

Mr. Frazee has built— and has laid a strong foundation. But 
his foundation is far from his house ! ! 

True, manner, and degree can be predicated of relation. But 
the Note which he undertakes to fix upon this truth, has no more 
bearing upon it than the capitol at Washington has upon the pil- 
lars of Cambridge bridge afr' Boston ! ! His reasoning is like the 
following : 

The word, bell-flower, is compounded of bell, and flower. Hence 
the word, man, is masculine gender ! ! 



CHAPTER VI.— Scanning. 

As no one who is ignorant of Construing, can parse easily, and 
readily, so no one who is ignorant of Scanning, can see clearly, 
and readily, the connection of the relative words of a section. 

In teaching, care should be taken to encourage the beginner by 
giving him, in the first place, principles which he can readily com- 
prehend. The first classification of the things which the beginner 
is to study, should be made upon the simplest principles on which 
a useful division can be effected. All teachers know that the 
zeal with which a pupil prosecutes his study, is in exact proportion 
to the ease with which he takes the very first step. If the child is 
discouraged at the commencement of his study, by an inability to 
take the first step with ease, he takes the others with great reluc- 
tance, or with manifest indifference. To encourage the child at 
the very commencement of the study of English grammar, the 
author of the Rational System makes the first division of words 
upon the simple principle of the trunk relation of some words, 
and the branch relation of others. Hence his first classification 
of words, is into trunk words, and branch words. 

This simple classification not only encourages the learner to 
prosecute his study with alacrity, but it furnishes him with two 
important, simple, technical terms which he has occasion to use in 
the subsequent parts of the same study. 

In the Rational System a sentence is divided into sections, 
and a section, into trunk, and into branch words. But the ad- 
vantage of this division cannot be seen without a careful examina- 
tion of the subject. In the old theory, the attention of the learner 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 95 

is too much divided at the commencement of the study. He there 
has ten distinct classes of words — hence ten distinct technical 
names which he must apply in the best way he can. True, in the 
application of these technicals, he is often aided by chance, fre- 
quently by a confused recollection, and perhaps sometimes, by a 
partial comprehension of the definitions of the denominations of 
words. But, if the characteristic fancies, on which the ten defi- 
nitions given in the old books are founded, were even painted on 
each class of words in the brightest colours which have ever 
been spread upon any objects, still, the ten technical terms would, 
when coupled with an appropriate distribution of them among the 
various classes of words, be far too much for a beginner's imma- 
ture faculties. But, when we consider that words are not only 
not classed by any visible marks, but by signs, the comprehension 
of which requires a philosopher 's mind, our conclusion must be 
that the beginner in grammar, will advance with more ease with 
two technical names only than with ten ! 

Admitting, however, that the beginner is able to make a correct 
application of all the technicals in the old Grammar, with the 
utmost ease ; yet, as these technical names are not applied in 
reference to the constructive relation of words, this relation, this 
important part of grammar, is entirely disregarded in the usual 
way of teaching. The constructive relation which the words of 
a sentence, bear to each other, is the main part of grammar as a 
science. Hence, as the old theory does not found its Etymological 
distinctions upon this relation, a pupil who may be able to make 
these distinctions with great ease, and perfect accuracy, may be 
totally ignorant of the grammatical relation which one word bears 
to another. 

That the First Book of the Kational System of English 
Grammar, is far more simple, and thorough than the old Irrational 
theory, is clearly demonstrated from the following view of both 
methods. 

The value of the right-hand figure expresses the rank of the 
words of the branch order; the erect posture, their uni adaption ; 
and the horizontal posture, their plus adaption. Words of the 
trunk order, have no figures. The brackets [ ] denote the ti~unk 
section. 





The First Book. 




The Old Theory. 


1 [The I* 


a word of the branch order 


The, 


an article 


1 power 


a word of the trunk order 


power, 


a noun 


2(o/l 


a word of the branch order 


of, 


a preposition 


2 speech) 


a word of the trunk order 


speeeh, 


a noun 


1 is] 1 


a word of the branch order 


is, 


a verb 


3 (a 1 


a word of the branch order 


a, 


an article 



* All the words which have the same figure, belong to one section. 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 



The First Book. 

3 faculty) a word of the trunk order 

4 (which a word of the trunk order 
4 is 1 a word of the branch order 

4 peculiar 1) a word of the branch order 

5 (to 1 a word of the branch order 

5 man;) a word of the £rwn& order 

6 (and 1 a word of the branch order 
6 i£ a word of the trunk order 
6 was 1 a word of the branch order 

6 bestowed 1) a word of the branch order 

7 (ora 1 a word of the branch order 

7 Aim) a word of the trunk order 

8 (by 1 a word of the branch order 
8 his 1 a word of the branch order 
8 beneficent 1 a word of the branch order 

8 Creator) a word of the £rtt??& order 

9 (for 1 a word of the branch order 
9 £Ae 1 a word of the branch order 
9 greatest 1 a word of the branch order 

9 wses ;) a word of the trunk order 

10 (and 1 a word of the branch order 
10 if a word of the trunk order 
10 was 1 a word of the branch order 

10 bestowed l)a word of the bvanch order 

11 (/or 1 a word of the branch order 
11 iAe 1 a word of the branch order 
11 mosf 2 a word of the branch order 
11 excellentl a word of the branch order 

11 ttses;) a word of the trunk order 

12 (ow£ 1 a word of the branch order 

13 alas!) a word of the trunk order 
12 Aozfl 3 a word of the branch order 
12 o/Ven 2 a word of the branch order 
12 do 1 a word of the branch order 
12 we a word of the trunk order 
12 pervert i-h a word of the branch order 
12 tY) a word of the trunk order 

14 (to 1 a word of the branch order 
14 fAe 1 a word of the branch order 
14 worst I a word of the branch order 

14 purpose) a word of the trunk order 

15 (o/ 1 a word of the branch order 
15 purposes.) a word of the trunk order 

But the most important part of Book L, is the Construing 
which it teaches. Construing is the analysis of Sections as the 
trunks, and branches of sentences. 

[Moses smote the rock] (with his most sacred rod.) 

This sentence contains two distinct Sections. The first, is 
called the hunk section. [Moses smote the rock.] 

The second, is styled the branch section, (with his most sacred 
rod.) 



The Old Theory. 

faculty, a noun 

which, understood, a pronoun 

is, understood, a verb 

peculiar, an adjective 

to, a preposition 

man; a noun 

and, a conjunction 

it, understood, a pronoun 

was, a verb 

bestowed, a verb 

on, a preposition 

him, a pronoun 

by, a preposition 

his, a pronoun 
beneficent an adjective 

Creator, a noun 

for, a preposition 

the, an article 

greatest, an adjective 

uses; understood, a noun 

and, a conjunction 

it, understood, n pronoun 

was, understood, a verb 

bestowed, understood, a verb 

for, understood, a preposition 

the, understood, an article 

most, an adverb 

excellent, an adjective 

uses ; a noun 

but, a conjunction 

alas ! an interjection 

how, an adverb 

often, an adverb 

do, a verb 

we, a pronoun 

pervert, a verb 

it, a pronoun 

to, a preposition 

the, an article 

worst, an adjective 

purpose, understood, a noun 

of, a preposition 

purposes, a noun. 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 97 

Now, as " Moses smote the rock" is the trunk section of the 
entire sentence, so Moses, and rock are the trunk words of the 
trunk section- Moses, rock. 

And, as " with his most sacred rod," is the branch section of 
the sentence, so smote, and the are the branch words of the trunk 
section. Smote, the. 

And, as rod is the trunk word of the branch section of the 
entire sentence, so with, his, most, and sacred, are the branch 
words of the branch section. With, his, most, sacred. 

1. The entire sentence : [Moses smote the rock] {with his most 
sacred rod.) 

2. The trunk section of the sentence : [Moses smote the rock.] 

3. The trunk words of the trunk section : [Moses, rock.] 

4. The branch words of the trunk section : smote, the. 

5. The branch section of the sentence : (with his most sacred 
rod.) 

6. The trunk word of the branch section : rod. 

7. The branch words of the branch section : with, his, most, 
sacred. 

The division of a sentence into sections, cannot he thoroughly dis- 
cussed in this place. But, narrow as the author's space is here, he 
cannot dismiss the subject without saying that however unimportant 
Book I. may seem to the cursory reader, it must be of great 
moment to the thinking teacher. They who reject Book I. must 
remain in the dense cloud which, whether it rises out of the sub- 
ject itself, or out of the numerous gross absurdities with which 
the old school Grammarians have marred it, can never be removed 
without the aid of this work. 

9 



98 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

CHAPTER VII. 

The Old Theory of English Grammar not a System. 

That the old theory of English Grammar is not a system, is 
obvious to all who have learned it. How, then, it may be asked,, 
does it happen that so many admire it ? They that admire the 
old theory of English grammar, do it not because they find any 
thing in it, worthy even of approbation, but because they find a 
high degree of mystery about it. Any other thing equally myste- 
rious, is as well calculated to gain the admiration of these persons. 
I could give the names of hundreds who teach by this theory, and 
who say that they like to teach English Grammar much better 
than any other branch. But these persons teach this theory, not 
because they do understand it, but because they do not. There 
is something mysterious in this theory of rough names, contra- 
dictory principles, and bewildering long notes, which acts as a charm 
even upon the reason of some. In this, there is nothing strange : 
human beings, in general, almost revere in adult age, what they 
acquire in childhood. This is particularly the case when the thing 
acquired, is a theory taught from a book in general use. Children 
are inclined by nature, to adopt whatever is advanced in books, as 
true. And adults are inclined by nature, to " hold o?i" to what- 
ever they bring up with them from the nursery, and the school- 
room. This accounts for the tenacity with which so many hold to 
an old theory long after they become convinced that the theory 
cannot sustain them. In general, both teacher, and pupil, in 
grammar, are dependent upon mere book authority. Should it be 
laid down by an author of an arithmetic, that Jive with four, are 
fifteen, neither teacher, nor pupil would believe it upon the 
authority of the book. 

But, in grammar, whatever the book says, is true to the letter ! 
In arithmetic, there are principles which can be understood ; and 
which, when applied, will decide whether five with four are fifteen. 
In grammar, however, the only principles which can be under- 
stood, are the dictums of the book !— And the only process of 
reasoning consists of reciting false rules, definitions, notes, obser- 
vations, -and exceptions, from Murray, Ingersoll, Bullions, Comly, 
Webster, Smith. Kirkham, Goold Brown, Frost, &c, &c, &c. 

Would the prediction of fifty false prophets, establish it in the 
minds of the people, that John Jones is to be translated ! ? Or 
would the declarations of fifty blind men establish it as a fact, 
that a white horse is a black one ! 1 

I will not say that I have demonstrated that these grammar 
menders have no eves— but I am entirely mistaken if I have not 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 99 

proved, that if they have any, they have made little, or no use of 
them ! ! 

The English language has constructive principles. It is the 
province of a maker of an English Grammar, to explain these 
principles, and to construct his theory upon them. 

The old theory of English grammar, is denominated a system. 
This, however, is a gross misnomer ; it bears no analogy to a 
system. In a system, the classes of the same set, are all formed 
in reference to the same trait of character in the thing. That is, 
in the general classification of things, words, principles, or ideas, 
every class is formed in reference to the same principle, the same 
characteristic, the same ear-mark. And in each sub classification, 
each class is formed in reference to the same ear-mark to the 
thing. 

Botany is the science of the structure, functions, properties, 
habits, and arrangement of plants. But a theory on this science, 
which does not adopt a uniformity in the plan of classification, is 
any thing but a system. For instance — -were some of the general 
classes formed in reference to the structure, and others in reference 
to the functions, of plants, the theory would not be a system. Uni- 
formity in classification, is absolutely essential to system— indeed? 
uniformity is system itself. Have the old school Grammarians 
observed a uniformity of basis in their classification of words as 
parts of speech ? 

Jfoun. Article. 

Verb. Adjective. 

Jldverb. - Preposition. 

Conjunction. Pronoun. 

Participle. Jnterjection. 

Here are ten classes in one set — yet no two classes in the set, 
are formed in reference to the ear-mark, the same trait of char- 
acter. 

1. The noun is defined in reference to the name character of a 
word. 

2. The article is defined, not in reference to the name char- 
acter of a word, but in reference to a limiting power which it is 
said to exert over other words. 

3. The verb is defined in reference to the being, action, and 
suffering, which it expresses. 

4. The adjective is defined in reference to adjection, and 
quality. 

5. The adverb is defined in reference to " how, when, and 
where." 



100 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM, 

6. The preposition is defined in reference to relation, 

7. The conjunction is defined in reference to connection. 

8. The pronoun is defined in reference to the prevention of 
the repetition of the noun, 

9. The participle is defined in reference to its participation 
of the nature of a verb, and adjective. 

10. The interjection is defined in reference to the position 
which it occupies with respect to other words, and to the ideas 
which it expresses. 

The different principles in reference to whic/i these ten 
classes are formed. 

1. Name character of a word. 

2. Limiting power over other words. 

3. Being, action, and suffering. (Three.) 

4. Adjection, and quality. (Two.) 

5. How, when, and where. (Three.) 

6. Relation, 

7. Connection. 

8. Prevention of repetition* 

9. Participation of two natures I 

10. Position, of words, and character of ideas, (Two.) 

As the verb is defined in reference to three things — the adjec- 
tive, in reference to two— and the adverb, in reference to three,, 
the number of things as here indicated, is augmented to sixteen. 
These ten classes, then, which system requires to be formed in 
reference to one thing, are formed in reference to sixteen ! ! And 
these sixteen things in reference to which this one set of classes 
is formed, are as dissimilar as any two things which can be men- 
tioned ! ! ! This is uniformity.— -this is system indeed I If one 
class is formed in reference to the name character of words, each 
class of the set of classes should be formed in reference to this 
character. And, if all these classes cannot be defined in reference 
to this character, no one should be. 

I have discussed the manner of forming each of these classes 
fully in another part of this work — hence I shall say nothing 
more in this place of this error of classification. 

The old theory of English grammar is denominated a system. 
But this is a gross misnomer. In a system, the classes of the 
same set, are all formed in reference to the same trait of char- 
acter. Any classification of words, which is not formed upon this 
principle, is confusion, — not system I 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM, 101 

1. Noun. 
v * A noun is the name of something;" as, 
Book, John, London*, Virtue, Accuracy. 

Upon what principle is a word called a noun ? The principle 

Is the name character of the word. 

2. Article. 

" An article is a word put before a noun, to show the extent 
of its meaning; as, a man, the man. 5 ' — Bullions. 

This definition conveys no allusion to the name character on 
which the noun is defined. 

That the absurdity of this way of classing the words of a lan- 
guage, may be fully seen, let it be asked what would be thought 
of a teacher of a Seminary, who should attempt to make a classifi- 
cation of the pupils of his institution upon totally dissimilar prin- 
ciples. For instance — -the pupils who study grammar, he classes 
in reference to this study, and denominates them the 

Grammar Class. 

But, them who study geography, he classes, not in reference to 
this study, but in reference to their ages ! ! ! 

Thus, instead of having a Gh*ammar class, and Geography class, 
the teacher has 

1. A Grammar class , and 

2. An ag-e class ! ! 

o 

What man, what child, does not see that if one is a Grammar 
class, the other is a Geography class ? 

1. A noun is the name of a thing ; as, John^ London , book. 
Bullions. 

An article is a word put before a noun, to show the extent of 
its meaning ; as, a man, the man. — Bullions. 

That is, they that study grammar, are a Grammar class, but 
they that study geography, are an Age class i ! ! 

3. Adjective. 

u An adjective is a word added to a noun to express its quality; 
as, a good boy." — Bullions. 

Here the principle of classing words, Is changed again. In the 
definition, no allusion is made to the showing of the extent of the 
meaning of the noun ! ! An article is a word which is put before 
a noun to show the noun's extent of meaning ; as, a man, the man. 

But an adjective is a word added to a noun to express the noun's 
quality ; as, a good boy ! ! 



102 class book of criticism, 

4. Pronoun. 

" A pronoun is a word used instead of a noun j as? John is a 
good boy ; he is diligent in his studies." — Bullions. 

Here too we find another distinct principle of classification* 
Here the principle of classing bears no analogy to that on which 
the noun is defined^— to that on which the article is defined,—* 
nor to that on which the adjective is defined I 

A pronoun is used instead of a noun ; as, " He promised to 
come, which he did not do." 

(Is which here used instead of a noun, or instead of a verb 1 1 T) 

5. Verb. 

A verb is a word that expresses an action? or state; as, I write^ 
you sit, he sleeps, they are." — Bullions. 

Another change in the principle of classing words ! The idea 
of substitution is entirely rejected : action, and state are her© 
made the basis of classing words I 

(We should be pleased to learn whether resemble? falls under 
the idea of action, or state ! ? We feel somewhat curious too to 
learn whether will, in the expression, " I will pay you soon," ex- 
presses action, or state ! ! In this case will appears to express a 
jiromise I I !) Bullions' English Grammar, p. 32 ! 1 1 

6. Participle. 

The participle is a part of the verb which contains no afiirma- 
tion, but expresses being, doing, or suffering ; as, 

John being a good pupil, his teacher thought much of him." — - 
Bullions' English Grammar being worse than Murray's, we cannot 
recommend it. 

Being is a participle — but as the participle is the part of the 
verb, which contains no affirmation, we trust that we shall not be 
charged with having mid that Bullions' Grammar is worse than 
Murray's ! 

7. Adverb. 

" An adverb is a word joined to a verb, an adjective, or to an- 
other adverb, to modify ox denote some circumstances respecting 
it ; Ann speaks distinctly; she is remarkably diligent, she reads 
very correctly." — Bullions. 

Here too is new ground. But it may be said that it is utterly 
impossible to class all words in reference to the same thing. We 
shall discuss this point in its proper place. Still we will simply 
enquire here whether reads is not as much the name of the action 
as is Ann the name of the agent — whether correctly is not as much 
the name of the manner in which she reads, as is reach the name 



CLASS BOOK 0? CRITICISM. 103 

of her action ; and whether very is not as much the name of the 
degree of her manner as is correctly the name of the manner itself? 

8. Preposition* 

" A preposition is a word which expresses the relation in which 
a substantive stands to a verb, or to another substantive in the 
same sentence ; as, Before honour is humility ; they speak con- 
cerning virtue."— Bullions. 

Nothing of the old ground is here seen : Behold old things 
have passed away— all things have become new . r 

9. Conjunction. 

" A conjunction is a word which joins words, and sentences 
together ,* as, You and I must study } but he may go^ and play." 
Bullions, 

10. Interjection. 

An interjection is a word which expresses some emotion of the 
speaker ; as, Oh ! What a sight is here ! Well done /—Bullions, 

Thus we have given not only ten different principles in refer- 
ence to which the ten parts of speech are defined, but the defi- 
nitions themselves, The ten principles are not only entirely 
foreign to the subject of grammar^ but totally different from one 
another. The irrelevancy of the principles to the subject of gram- 
mar, and the heterogeneousness of them may be well illustrated 
by the following principles on which a distinguished pedagogue 
classed the pupils of his schooL 

1. 4*eof the child! 

2. Height of the child . 

3. Weight of the child f 

4. Colour of the child's coat I 

5. Extent of the child's family connection f 

6. Kind of food most desired by the child! 

7. Form of the child's nose ! 

8. Distance which the child lives from the school house I 

9. Health of the child ! 

10. Number of pigs possessed by the child's father, 

Bidiculous as this may appear to the reader, we assure him 
that it is a fair illustration of the old theory of English grammar, 

" Age ! has age any thing to do with the classification 1 n No-- 
thing— nor has the name character of a word any thing to do with 
its part of speech character. As every pupil must have age, so 
every word in a language, must possess the name character ! If 
you show us a word which is not the name of something, you will 
exhibit the fifth wheel to a coach. What enables- a word to be & 



104 class boos: op criticism. 

namet It is the sign character. Do not all words have the sign 
character ? What says the following definition ? 

" Words are articulate sounds used by common consent as the 
'signs of our ideas." 

Who disputes the soundness of this definition of words ? Does 
any one 1 Can any one ! % All words, then, are signs. And, as 
no word has any thing but the sign character which this definition 
gives to all words, to enable it to become a name, how can book 
become a name any more than behind ? If one word can become 
a name by virtue of its sign character, cannot all words become 
frames by virtue of their sign character ? And, if one word can 
become a noun by virtue of its name character, cannot all words 
become nouns by the same means ! 1 Why, then are not all words 
nouns ! ! 

It seems from the following extract that Dr. Webster holds 
that the part of speech trait of character is founded in nature : 

" Thus the distinction between the sexes, between things and 
their qualities, between the names of substances, and of their ac- 
tions, or motions, between unity, and plurality, between present, 
and future time, and some other distinctions are founded in nature*, 
and gives rise to different species of words, and to various inflec- 
tions in all languages." 

Let us now ask this simple question : what is founded in nature ? 
The distinction between the sexes is founded in nature. What 
else is founded in nature ? The distinction between tilings and 
their qualities, is founded in nature. This is all very true : but 
while nature makes these distinctions in her works, she points out 
no exact method to man by which he is to express these distinc- 
tions. In very many instances indeed the distinction of sex in 
our language must be sought from the context itself, from the na- 
ture of the proposition, from the circumstances of the case. 

True, nature makes a distinction between the quality and its 
subject. But nature does not point out the means by which men 
shall express this distinction ! This distinction is expressed in 
different ways in different languages. And even in the same 
language there is a variety of ways of expressing this very dis- 
tinction ! The distinction is one thing ; the method of expressing 
it is another. With the distinction itself nature has every thing 
to do — but with the means of expressing this distinction nature 
has nothing to do ! For instance : In the following words, and 
forms of words, we find nine modes of expressing the quality of , 
accuracy : correctness, colored, correctly, accuracy, accurate, accu- 
rately, propriety, proper, properly \ 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 105 

But it is said by Dr. Webster in the subjoined part of bis sen- 
tence wbicb be offers as a definition of grammar, tbat these dis- 
tinctions give rise to different species of words : 

" x\nd give rise to different species of words, and to various 
inflections in all languages." 

Is it possible tbat tbe distinctions wbicb nature bas made in ber 
works, give rise to different species of words, and various inflec- 
tions J Accuracy denotes a quality ; yet accuracy is a noun * 
■pen denotes, not a quality but an instrument ; yet pen is a 
noun ! Accurate denotes a quality, and accuracy denotes a quality } 
yet, accurate is an adjective, and accuracy a noun i 

If Dr. Webster's doctrine is sound, all words denoting qualities, 
sbould be of tbe same species, or of tbe same part of speech ! But 
is it so ? Examine for yourselves : 

Quality. 

1. Accuracy. Noun. 

2. Accurate. Adjective, 

3. Accurately. Adverb. 

But Mr. Webster does not stop here : be proceeds as follows : 

"Tbe distinction between tbe names of substances, and tbe 
names of their actions, or motions, give rise to different species 
of words, and to various inflections in all languages.'^ 

This is so far from tbe truth, that the very same word which 
is the name of tbe substance is tbe name of the action of the sub- 
stance \ this is not rare, but common. 

Noun. Yerb. 

1. The judge will judge us all. 

Noun. Yerb. 

2. This man will man the ship. 

Noun. Yerb. 

3. That ship did ship the articles. 

Noun. Yerb. Noun. 

4. Love will love love. 

Noun. Yerb. 

5. This plow will plow well. 

Noun. Yerb. 

6. His order will order him. to return* 

Noun. Yerb. 

7. Water does water the plants* 



106 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

Noun. Verb, 

8. My note will note that fact. 

Noun. Verb. 

9. This punch did punch the brad. 

Noun. Verb. 
10. This pen did pen these lines. 

Let us now give some instances in which the name of the ac- 
tion, or motion, is a noun : 

1. The race was run last week. 

2. The flight of the bird was high. 

3. Investigation is his employment. 

4. He is never found in the act of decursion. 

5. They are engaged in the act of dedication. 

All the italic words in the above instances, and thousands of 
others, are the names of actions — yet these words are nouns. 
What, then, becomes of Mr. Webster's doctrine, that the distinc- 
tion which nature has made between the substance, and its action, 
give rise to different species of words ? It is not the kind of 
thing denoted, which determines the grammatical species of words. 
Words may denote action, and be nouns ; they may denote action, 
and be verbs. 

The dictionary import, the general signification of a word, is 
not the true basis for its grammatic classification. And I under- 
take to say that the cause of our present destitution of a correct 
system of English grammar, is the effect, may be found in the 
error which all have committed upon the very threshhold of their 
essays to form a system of definitions, and rules for the full ex- 
pression of the constructive principles of bur language, to the 
juvenile mind. The import, the meaning of words, has been 
made by all Grammarians, the main principle for the- classification 
of the words in a sentence. Hence, as nouns, verbs, pronouns, 
prepositions, conjunctions, adjectives, and adverbs, may signify 
the same ideas, the pupil, teacher, Grammarian, and philosopher, 
have ever been unable to find that clear line of distinction, which 
all Grammarians have attempted to draw in their classification of 
the words of a sentence. For instance : of, my, John's, own, 
have, and owns, all denote the idea of possession. 

1. This is the hat of John. Of, a preposition. 

2. This is John's hat. John's, a noun. 

8. This is my own hat. My, a pronoun 5 own, an adjective. 

4. They have three hats. Have, a verb. 

5. They own three houses. Own, a verb. 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 107 

II. The words, resemble, resemblance, similar, similarity, like, 
likeness, analogous, analogy, all denote the same general idea, viz. 
the relation, or quality of resemblance. 

1. He resembles me. Resembles, a verb. 

2. There is a resemblance between us. Resemblance, a noun. 

3. This is a similar circumstance. Similar, an adjective. 

4. There is a similarity between those books. % Similarity, a 
noun. 

5. These two books are like mine. Like, an adjective. 

6. The likeness between them is obvious. Likeness, a noun. 

7. The cases are analogous. Analogous, an adjective. 

8. The analogy between the cases, is clear. Analogy, a noun. 

III. It is said a verb signifies being, or action, or some state of 
being. But many nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and even interjec- 
tions express the same things. 

1. An adjective denotes action ; as, a quivering leaf, running 
water, flying clouds, a breathing body. 

Adjectives denote some state ; as, I am well, she is sick, he is 
dead, they are safe, we are afraid, John is alive. 

2. Nouns denote some state ; as, He is a man of grief *, he is a 
man of sorrow, he is in great distress of mind, and body, I have 
great misery, I am in constant fear. 

3. Prepositions denote some state ; as, he is under a millstone, 
he is under a tyrant, I am placed over, not under these men, he is 
in good heart. 

4. Adverbs denote some state ; as, he is out of temper, he fell 
out with his friend, he fell in with this gentleman in June last, 
one is, but the other is not. Here not signifies a state of non- 
existence. 

IV. Nouns, and adjectives may denote the same ideas ; as, a 
man of virtue, a virtuous man, a man of merit, a meritorious man, 
he is a man of worth, he is a worthy man. 

V. Nouns, and adverbs denote the same ideas ; as, he writes 
with accuracy, he writes accurately. 

VI. Nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs denote the same 
ideas ; as, he is a man of merits they merit praise, he is a meri- 
torious man, he conducted himself meritoriously. 

Now, is there any one who can not see from the preceding ex- 
hibition, that the British English grammarians have attempted 
what can never be accomplished ; namely, a consistent classifica- 
tion of words upon their significations ? 



108 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

There is much contention among grammarians respecting the 
number of the parts of speech. Some of the old school contend 
for six, some for eight, some for nine, and some for ten. Now, as 
the number of the parts of speech must necessarily depend upon 
the principle of classification, there may be but one part, and there 
may be as many parts as there are words in a language. If words 
are classed upon their exact dictionary import, the English lan- 
guage would have seventy, or eighty thousand parts of speech. 
But, if words are classed upon the number of syllables which each 
word contains, there would be but four parts of speech, viz., mono- 
syllable, dissyllable, trisyllable, and polysyllable. 

Specimen of Parsing.. 

He surely understands geography. 

He a monosyllable. 

sure-ly a dissyllable. 

un-der- stands a trisyllable. 

ge-og-ra-phy a polysyllable. 

No word can be found which does not fall into one of the above 

classes. 

The above is one among a thousand bases on which words may 
be classed ; each basis giving a different number of parts, or 
classes. But among all these bases of classification, there is but 
one which is sound ; there is but one which is calculated to give 
the true conductive principles of our language ; that one is the 
frame-work philosophy of a sentence* 

1. A sentence is a frame-work of signs, employed by men for 
the communication of their ideas. 

2. Grammar is a science which treats of the constructive prin- 
ciples of a sentence. 

To construct is to build, to form. The word, construct, is de- 
rived from the Latin elements, con, together, and struo, to arrange, 
to pile up. Hence, it is natural enough, that construct should 
mean the process, or act, of placing the parts of a thing according 
to some fixed principles of arrangement. 

The word, construction, may mean the act of building, or form- 
ing ; it may mean also the particular form which the thing 
receives from being constructed ; and it may mean the manner in 
which the constituent parts of the thing constructed, are put 
together 

Perhaps, you will ask whether the word grammar, is synony- 
mous with the word, construction. The word, construction, is no 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 109 

more synonymous with the word, grammar, than the word, boy, is 
with the word, Nathaniel. 

Boy. Nathaniel. 

" Boy" is general in its application — it means not only the same 
being to which the word, Nathaniel, applies, but it includes all 
the other beings of the same class. " Construction," like boy, is 
general j but "grammar" like Nathaniel, is special, particular. 

!( James, 
boy. Particular < Joseph, 

( Nathaniel. 

f red, 
I yellow, 
General <j colour. Particular \ blue, 

j black, 
( scarlet. 



General < 



construction. Special 



r architecture, 
mechanism, 
organization, 
anatomy, 

L grammar. 



1. If the construction belongs to a house, we call it, if we speak 
literally, (the construction) architecture. 

2. If the construction belongs to a machine, we call it mech- 
anism. 

3. If the construction belongs to trees, or plants, we call it 
organization. 

4. If the construction belongs to an animal body, we call it 
anatomy. 

5. If the construction belongs to a word, or a sentence, or to 
a language, we call it grammar. 

We speak of the architecture of a house, a temple, a bridge, a 
fortification, &c, as fine, or otherwise. But we never speak of 
the mechanism of a house. Nor do we speak of the anatomy of 
a watch, or the grammar of a clock : we say the mechanism of a 
watch, the mechanism of a clock. Nor do we say the organization 
of a word, the organization of a sentence, the organization of a 
language. We say the grammar of a word, the grammar of a sen- 
tence, the grammar of a language. 

" A Language is a frame-work of signs, used by men for the 
communication of their ideas." 

10 



110 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM, 

In what way language is a frame-work^ grammarians of the old 
school seem unable to comprehend. They appear to be willing 
to understand no system which is not composed of actors, actions 
and objects ! Now, actors, actions, and objects may hold a con- 
spicuous place in a system of metaphysics ; yet how they can be- 
come parts of a system of grammar, is not so very clear. But, is 
it not strange that these Grammarians, after making actors, 
actions, being, and objects, the principal parts of their theory, 
should proceed upon the ground that language itself is an abstract 
nothing, and a sentence the mere child of the imagination ? Lan- 
guage, considered in its true character, seems to be as tangible as 
a clock ) and a sentence as much a piece of mechanism as a 
watch. A sentence is a frame-work of words. A word is a sort 
of house, a kind of temple, constructed of sound, ink, paint, 
metal, or other matter, and is occupied by the meaning, the 
signification itself. Thus a sentence is a little village, a cluster 
of buildings, various in their shape, size, and occupants. Thus, 
too, while a chapter is a whole ward of a verbal city, and a 
sentence one block of houses in this ward, a whole book is the 
entire city, peopled by those significant citizens that are engaged 
exclusively in the commerce of ideas. Language, then, is a 
frame-work whose constructive principles are not derived from 
actors, actions, and objects ; therefore, it can never be developed 
by any system of grammar which makes these its foundation. 
Grammar concerns the construction of the language, not the 
actors, actions, and objects which the words of a sentence denote. 
Hence, he who attempts to make a book to unfold the grammar, 
the mechanism of any language, should confine himself to con- 
structive principles. To say what a word in any sentence means, 
is to leave the frame-work, the architecture of the house for its 
occupants. Bear this in mind : the Grammarian is not to teach 
the nature of the liquid, but to illustrate the construction of the 
vessel ! In other words, it is not the province of the Grammarian 
to describe the fruit, but to teach the frame-work of the basket 
which contains the fruit. 

Mr. Webster continues as follows : 

" The grammar of a particular language, is a system of general 
principles, derived from natural distinctions of words, and of 
particular rules, deduced from the customary forms of speech in 
the nation using that language. 

The grammar of a particular language is not a system of general, 
but of special principles ! 

This system of principles is not derived from the natural distinc- 
tions of words. Indeed, if the distinctions among words, are the 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. Ill 

production of nature* nature is without any uniformity whatever; 
for according to the sentence quoted above, she is different in 
different nations. 

"The grammar of a particular language is a system of general 
principles derived from natural distinctions of words, and of par- 
ticular rules deduced from the customary forms of speech in the 
nation using that language !" 

But how can a system of general principles be deduced from 
particular forms ? 

Mr. Webster continues : 

" These usages are mostly arbitrary, or incidental ; but when 
they become common to a nation, they are to be considered as 
established, and received as rules of the highest authority /" 

And yet this distinguished man has spent a long life in 
opposing these very rules ! ! Yes, in relation to these very rules 
he remarks : — 

" It is the last effort I shall make to arrest the progress of error 
on this subject. It needs the club of a Hercules, wielded by the 
arm of a giant, to destroy the hydra of educational prejudice. The 
club and the arm I pretend not to possess, and mj efforts may be 
fruitless ; but it will ever be a satisfaction to reflect that I have 
discharged a duty demanded by a deep sense of the importance 
of truth. It is not possible for me to think with indifference, 
that half a million of youth in our schools are daily toiling to 
learn that which is not true. It has been justly observed that 
ignorance is preferable to error." 

In a preceding paragraph, Mr. Webster says, that these usages 
are founded in natural distinctions of words — yet in the sentence 
now under consideration, he says that the usages which constitute 
the grammar of a language, are " mostly arbitrary or incidental." 

" These usages are mostly arbitrary or incidental ; but when 
they become common to a nation, they are considered as estab- 
lished, and received as rules of the highest authority." 

And yet Mr. Webster, in another book, holds the following 
language : 

" In the gradual progress of language, many words acquire new 
meanings, while the old ones become obsolete. So numerous are 
such instances, that between thirty and forty thousand definitions 
are contained in this work, which are not known to exist in any 
other ! !" (A house divided against itself cannot stand.) 



112 CLASS BOOK OE CRITICISM. 

We have now arrived at that place in the discussion of this sub- 
ject where it becomes important to mention somewhat formally 
the true basis of a system of grammar. But before we do this, it 
may be well enough to ask the reader to give close attention to 
the following points : 

1. The constructive character of a sentence. 

2. The significant character of words. 

3. The relative character of the things which are denoted by 
the words of the sentence. 

1. The true basis of a system of grammar must depend upon 
which of the above characters, the author wishes to develope. If 
he desires to develope the relative character of the things which 
the words of a sentence, denote, the foundation of his system must 
be the relative character of these things. 

2. If he wishes to develope the significant character of the 
component parts of a sentence, the foundation of his system must 
be the dictionary import of words. 

3. But, if he wishes to develope the constructive character of a 
sentence, and of its component parts, the foundation of his system 
must be the constructive, the frame-work, philosophy of a sentence. 

_ He must not begin by affirming that " a verb is a word which 
signifies, being, action, or suffering." The lexicographer proclaims 
the signification of words ! Let the Grammarian publish their 
construction. 

Nor must he begin by affirming that the nominative case is the 
name of the agent, the actor, the subject ! Let the Grammarian 
speak of the aid which the nominative noun renders the verb in 
forming a diction, in the production of the sentence character. 
Whether the nominative case denotes the agent, the object, or 
neither, is no part of the Grammarian's province to decide ! The 
relative character of the things denoted, is no part of grammar, 

But to be more formal : what does a system of grammar profess 
to teach ? Does it not undertake to teach the constructive char- 
acter of language ? How, then, can it succeed in this undertaking 
while it founds all its distinctions, classifications, and rules, no? 
upon the constructive, but upon the significant character of words, 
and the relative character of the things denoted by words? 

Mr. Murray, his predecessors, and successors, have undertaken 
to teach the constructive principles of the English language ; 
and, incredible as it may appear, in all their attempts to accom- 
plish this great object, they have founded their theories, not upon 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 113 

construction, but upon the signification of words, and the relation 
of things ! ! That is, in their numerous attempts to form a 
system by which to teach the constructive character of a sen- 
tence, they have paid no regard to this constructive character ; 
but they have founded a system partly upon the significant 
philosophy of the words of a sentence, and partly upon the 
relative character of the things which the sentence points out ! 

THE BASIS OF THE OLD THEORY. 

1. The constructive character of a sentence. 

2. The significant character of words. 

3. The relative character of the things which are mentioned 
in a sentence. 



CHAPTER VIII.— « Parts of Speech." 

What is the meaning of the word, parts ? 

Particular division 5 distinct species, or sort belonging to a 
whole. — Webster. 

This is the only definition in any Dictionary which can justify 
this use of the word, parts. 

" Distinct species or sort belonging to a whole" 

Belonging to a whole what ? What whole is it which the old 
school Grammarians divide into nine, or ten species, parts ? The 
following will answer the question : 

" Parts of speech." 

Speech, then, is divided into nine species ! ! ! There are nine 
parts of speech. That is there are nine species of speech ! ! ! 
Let us hear Mr. Bullions : 
" The parts of speech in the English language, are nine, viz., 

Article, Noun, Adjective, Pronoun, Verb, Adverb, Preposition, 
Interjection, and Conjunction." 

What ! Is an article a species of speech ! % Is a, Is the a 

species of speech ! ! ? 

1. A command is a species of speech : 

" Go off," "Return," « Take off thy shoes, for the ground on 
which thou standest, is holy." 

10* 



114 CLASS BOOK OF OHITICISM. 

2. An affirmation is a species of speech : 

" And God said," Let there be light — " and there was light." 

8. An interrogation is a species of speech : 

"Does the sun shine Pf 

4* A petition is a species of speech : 

" Forgive our sins I" 1 

5. A subfirmation is a species of speech : 

66 Thou canst make me whole if thou wilt." 

The genus to which these five species of speech belong, is 
denominated diction. 

The word, parts, is here used with much impropriety, or it is 
used in the sense of species — hence the phrase, " Parts of speech," 
must be species of speech ! But a noun is not speech at all ! 

How, then, can a noun be a species of speech ! Book is a noun 

—but is book speech ! % 

As parts is used in the sense of parts, would it not be much 
better to say, parts of words. 

In English, there are nine parts of words : 

Article, Noun, Pronoun, Anjective, Verb, Adverb; Preposition^ 
Interjection, and Conjunction. 

But is an article a species of speech ? 

"Parts of speech." 

In what sense is the word, speech, here used 1 

This question is answered by Dr. Webster, who says that? 

Speech means Language. A particular language, as distinct 
from others. " That which is spoken. — Webster's Dictionary. 

If speech, as used above, means language, the import of the 
head,—" parts of speech," is species of language. 

Hence the old school Grammarians mean, by nine parts of 
speech, nine species of language ; as, the Latin, the Greek, the 
French, the English, &c. • 

"Parts of speech." We presume that the old school Gram- 
marians mean to express by this head, the idea of classes of words » 
This we infer, not from the language used, but from the nature 
of the subject. As grammar concerns words, it is natural to pre- 



CLASS BOOK OV CRITICISM. 115 

sume that in a theory of Grammar, the author would attempt to 
divide the words of the language upon whose constructive principles 
he writes, into classes. This presumption is the more natural 
from the consideration that almost every body knows that where 
there is not a throwing of things into classes, there is little 
science, or method. 

It is the province of science to classify things upon the basis of 
their analogies. Things, however, can not be considered in classes 
without appropriate class names. Hence, when the terms which 
are used in analyzing, are the names of the things as individuals^ 
and not as classes, there is a great want of scientific mcthodj and i 
scientific truth. That the old theory of English grammar, has no 
class names, will be evident from a little attention to the subject 
of classification itself. Hence it may be well enough to devote a 
few moments to the subject of classification before we attempt to 
demonstrate that the old theory of English Grammar is without 
this vital part. 

We have already said that it is the province of science to make 
a distribution of things into classes. Hence, philosophers have 
divided all the objects of thought into genera. " Aristotle 
made ten categories, viz., substance, quantity^ quality, relation, ac~ 
Hon, passion, time, place, situation, and liabit" 

Things, however, are now considered in classes, under the fol* 
lowing chss names, — -Class, Order, Genus$ Species, and Variety. 

We have not room for fixed definitions of these technical family 
names, as used in works of science. We must content ourselves 
with the observation that they are the classifying names of the 
various families of things, and beings, which are the subject of 
human contemplation. This method of disposing of the objects 
which surround us, is the work of division^ and subdivision* The 
entire family, or race, is first divided into classes ; each class is 
subdivided into orders ; each order is subdivided into genuses ; 
each genus is subdivided into species ; and, if the classifying 
properties are not exhausted in the species., each species is sub- 
divided into varieties. We will give a specimen of this scientific 
analysis in the following classifications of the letter, 0. 

0, a letter of the Orbic Class, Perfect Order, Branchless Genus. 

Here the Genus cannot be subdivided into species, for the classi- 
fying properties on which this series of classification is instituted, 
are exhausted in the genus, 



116 



CLASS BOOK Q# CRITICISM. 



ALPHABETIC OLASSI8COPE. 

The whole race. 

ABODEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ. 



Orbic 

Perfect 
Imperfect 

Branch 

Branchless 

Stem 

Stemless 

Monopart 

Duopart 

Tripart 

D Branch 
Q Branch 

In-orbic 

Rightangle 
Acuteangle 

Monostem 
Duostem 
Monostem 
Duostem 

Unibranch 

Duobranch 

Tribranch 

Unibranch 

Bibranch 

Double A 

Double V 



j 



Class. 
Order 

Genus 

Species 
Variety 

Class. 
Order 

Genus 



BCDGJOPQRSIL 

i OQ 
{BCDGJPRSU. 

(Q 




Species 



AEFHIKLMNTVWXYZ. 

j EFHLT 

{ AKMNVWXYZ 

EFLT 

H 

AKNVXYZ 

WM 

L 

FT 

UYV 
AKN 
M 
W 



Let us now give the analysis of Q. 

Q, a letter of the Orbic Class, Perfect Order, Branch Genus, 
(JVb Species.) 

R, a letter of the Orbic Class, Imperfect Order, Stem Genus t 
Tripart Species, and Q Branch Variety. 

Let us remark again that where there is not a throwing of things 
into classes, there is little science ; it is the province of science 
to classify things upon the basis' of their analogies. Things, how- 
ever, cannot be considered in classes, without appropriate class 
names. And where the terms which are used in analyzing, are 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 117 

the names of the things as mere individuals, there is neither 
method, nor truth. For instance, the word, be, is not the name 
of a class of letters, but of an individual letter. The word, 0, is 
not the name of a class of alphabetical characters, but the name 
of an individual character. This may be seen from the following 
attempt at a definition of the word, be : 

1. The word, be, is the name of a class of letters in the English 
alphabet ! 

2. B, then, is a class of letters in the English alphabet ! 

3. 13, is a letter in the English alphabet. 
The word, 0, then, is not a class name. 

The phrase, Orbic Class, is a class name. This name not only 
includes 0, but every other letter which has any orbic quality ; 
as, B, 0, D, G, J, 0, P, Q, K, S, U. 

1. Individual name of B ; Be. 

2. Class name of B ; Orbic Class. 

If we have made the reader understand the principle on which 
science proceeds in analyzing, he will see a great want of science 
in the method of analyzing words by the old theory of Grammar. 
The technical terms that the old school Grammarians apply to the 
words which they parse, are not class, but individual names ! The 
word, noun, is the name of an individual word. This may be seen 
from the following : 

1. A noun is a class of words, which is the name of any thing 
of which we can have a notion ! ! 

2. A noun is the name of any thing of which we can have a 
notion. 

The word, noun, then, takes words as individuals ; whereas the 
technology which the Rational system proposes to substitute, con- 
siders words in classes. 

" Moses smote the rock." 

The word, Moses, when taken alone, is called a noun, in the 
Rational system. But the class to which this word belongs, is 
called, noun denomination. 

The word, smote, when taken alone, is called a verb. But the 
class to which this word belongs, is styled, verb denomination. 

When the pupil parses a word, he necessarily mentions it by 
name. Having mentioned the word, the next step should be to 
class it. But it may be thought that when he applies noun, to the 
word which he is parsing he classes the word. 

" Man is mortal." 
Man is a noun. 

But, then, the application of the word, noun, to man, is not 
referring the word, man to its appropriate class. The phrase, a 
noun is a class of words, is not sense — how, then, can it be science? 



118 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM* 

THE SUBSTITUTE.— A Denomination of Words. 

A Denomination of words is a number of verba signs which 
have the same characteristic mark. 

In English, there are ten denominations of words, vijz., 

1. JYoun Denomination. 

2. Pronoun Denomination. 

3. Verb Denomination. 

4. Preposition Denomination. 

5. Conjunction Denomination. 

6. Adjective Denomination. 

7. Subadjective Denomination. 

8. Adverb Denomination. 

9. Subadverb Denomination. 
10. Interjection Denomination. 



CHAPTER IX. — Of the Generally Received Opinion, that 

Mr. Murray, in Compiling the Old Theory of 
English Grammar, Desired to Conform to tije Grammar 
of other Languages. 

It is generally admitted that the theory of English Grammar, 
compiled by Mr. Murray, is not suited to the genius of the 
English language. And this unsuitableness is accounted for in 
the following manner : 

It is pretended that it was the intention of Mr. Murray to con- 
struct his theory upon the principles of the Latin, to enable the 
English scholar to prepare through his own language, to enter 
upon the study of the Latin. But this reasoning, besides imputing 
a weakness to Mr. Murray, does an injustice to truth itself. For, 
what geographer in giving a description of the earth, would so far 
copy after a description of the moon, as to ascribe to the earth < 
many parts, and peculiarities which belong exclusively to the 
moon herself; more especially when it is considered that the sole 
inducement for such imitation would be a mere indirect prepara- 
tion on the part of those who may happen to study the astronomy 
of the moon? Who does not see that this method must subject 
the student to very serious injury — of the earth, the very place 
which he inhabits, he has false ideas. But of the moon, a planet 
with which he has nothing to do, he has correct notions. 

There are two languages, a living one, and a dead one — one in* 
general use — the other in limited use. 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 119 

The English being the living language, and the other the dead, 
the English being the one in general use, and the Latin being in 
very limited use ; the English being studied by all, but the Latin 
by a mere few only, if only one of the two can be clearly, and truly 
presented, the English should have the decided preference. .Both 
languages, however, may be described without any sacrifice oi 
either. Mr. Murray openly disclaims any forced imitation— he 
declares in his Grammar, and more than once too, that the English 
is a language, peculiar to itself, and that it should have a Grammar 
suited to its own character. That great scholar had not the least 
inclination to compound for the sake of this pretended accommo- 
dation. The following is an extract from a review of Mr. Murray s 
Grammar— and with the sentiments here expressed, Mr. Murray 
was so well pleased, that he has given the extract a place in his 
work : 

Under the head of Etymology, the author of this Grammar 
judiciously adheres to the natural simplicity of the English lan- 
guage, without embarrassing the learner, with distinctions peculiar 
to the Latin tongue." Analytical Review. 

And Mr. Murray himself, in speaking against the principle of 
imitation, remarks : 

"That our grammar should conform to the grammar of the 
Latin and Greek, no further than convenience and the idiom of our 
language require" 

Again says Mr. Murray : 

« This would encumber our language with many improper terms, 
and a heavy and useless load of distinctions." " On the principle 
of imitating other languages in names and forms, without a corres- 
pondence in nature and idiom, we might adopt a number of declen- 
sions as well as a variety of cases for English substantives." 

The following, taken from Mr. Murray's English Grammar, shows 
with what pertinacity he intended to adhere to the genius of the 
English language. 

" The author -of this work, long doubted the propriety of assign- 
ing to English nouns, an objective case." " The business of 
parsing, however, and of showing the connection and dependence 
of words, will be most conveniently accomplished by the adoption 
of such a case ; and the irregularity of having our nouns some- 
times placed in a situation, in which they cannot be said to be in 
any case at all, will be avoided." 

Those therefore, who would object to a revolution in the present 
theory of English Grammar, upon the ground of a further depar- 



120 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 



ture from the Latin, act upon a principle which is strongly opposed 
by Mr. Murray himself. 

The cases, as they now stand in English, are so very different 
both in name, and principles, that the student is much perplexed 
in attempting to acquire those of the Latin through his knowledge 
of those of the English. 

English. Latin. 

Nominative - § Nominative. I 

I Vocative. 

Possessive - - Genitive. 

( Accusative. 
Objective •) Ablative.- 

( Dative. 

Every language should be taught upon its own principles — and 
unless this is the case, no person can acquire a critical knowledge 
of any. 

It may be said that although the cases in English afford the 
student in grammar, little, or no aid in the Latin, yet the technical 
names of the parts of speech in English, greatly assist him in the 
study not only of the Latin, but in other languages. 

True, they who pass from the English to the Latin, are aided 
by the analogy in the technical names of the different classes of 
the words in both languages. It is not true, however, that they 
are greatly aided by this similarity ; for any one of common verbal 
memory, can commit all the names of the ten parts of speech in 
half an hour, with ease. 

But how few are they who ever study the Latin — and how 
numerous are they who study the English 1 If, then, the produc- 
tion of the greatest amount of good is to decide upon the expe- 
diency of introducing a few new, appropriate technicals, the point 
is decided in the affirmative with acclamation. 

There are many who condemn a new word as soon as they find 
it has not received its alphabetic niche in a Dictionary. With 
such, all words of recent formation, are without comeliness, utility, 
and even existence, till they are scraped up by some lexico- 
grapher ! Upon this principle, a merchant's goods are destitute 
of beauty, utility, and even of being, unless they are methodically 
placed upon his shelves ! Mr. Webster, and many others, how- 
ever, frankly denominate these significant concretions, words even 
before they have been taken into the sanctum sanctorum of the 
lexicographer ! In speaking of the number, and kind of words, 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 121 

which have been added to our language within a few years, Dr. 
Webster says : 

5. " Terms in the arts, and sciences — of these some thousands 
h-ave been added to our language within the last fifty years, of 
which a small number only, have found their way into any Dic- 
tionary." " An accurate definition of these terms in accordance 
with the advanced state of science at the present day, is now 
rendered important to all classes of readers by the popular char- 
acter given of late, to the sciences, and the frequent occurrence 
of scientific terms and allusions in literary works. The exact 
number of these terms now introduced for the first time into a 
Dictionary, is not known. It cannot, however, be much short of 
four thousand." " Among them are some of the most common 
words in the language, such as oxyd, muriate, sulphate, sulphuric, 
nitric, cvzote^ phosphorus, phosphorescent, planetarium, polarize, 
polarization, &c." Since the time of Johnson a complete revolu- 
tion has taken place in almost every branch of physical science. 
New departments have been created, new principles developed, 
new modes of classification and description adopted." — Advertise- 
ment of Webster's Dictionary. 

The best preparation which a pupil can have for his future 
studies, is a critical acquaintance with his present ones. And the 
best terms for the teacher, and the learner of any art, or science, 
are those which are truly appropriate in meaning, purely technical 
in character, and strictly uniform in application. 



CHAPTER X. A Synoptical View op the Subject. 

Notwithstanding few subjects have received more attention 
than 4< English Grammar," a system has not yet been formed 
which suits the peculiar genius of the English language. Why 
have all attempts failed ? Is the subject too intricate, too pro- 
found for the distinguished scholars who have spent their days, 
and exhausted their learning upon it 1 Or has the time since this 
subject was first agitated, been too short for the accomplishment 
of the object in view ? The author of this work is compelled to 
believe that neither the shortness of the time, nor the intricacy 
of the subject, can be urged as the reason why the world has not 
yet received a correct., clear, and full system of English Grammar. 
The cause, of which our present destitution of an English Gram- 
mar, is the effect, may be found in the error which all have com- 
mitted upon the very threshold of their books. The import, the 

11 



122 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

meaning of words, has been made, in all works on English Gram- 
mar, the main principle of classification. Hence, as nouns, verbs, 
pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, adjectives, and adverbs, may 
signify the same ideas, the pupil, teacher, Grammarian, and phil- 
osopher have been unable to find that clear line of distinction, 
which all Grammarians have attempted to draw between the 
different families of words, For instance— Of, my, Jolm's, own y 
have, and owns, all denote the idea of possession. 

1. This is the hat of John. Of, a preposition. 

2. This is John's hat. John's, a noun. 

3 f This is my own hat. My, a pronoun ; own, an adjective. 

4. They have three hats. Have, a verb. 

5. He owns three hats. Owns, a verb. 

II. The words, resembles, resemblance, similar, similarity, like, 
likeness, analogous, analogy, all denote the same idea \ namely, 
the relation, or quality of resemblance. 

1. He resembles me. Resembles, a verb. 

2. There is a resemblance between us. Resemblance, a noun. 

3. This is a similar circumstance. Similar an adjective. 

4. There is a similarity between these two books. Similarity^ 
a noun. 

5. These two books are like mine. Like, an adjective. 

6. The likeness between them is obvious. Likeness, a noun. 

7. The cases are analogous. Analogous, an adjective. 

8. The analogy between the cases, is clear. Analogy, a noun. 

III. It is said that a verb expresses action, being, or some state 
of being. But, as so many nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and even 
interjections, express the same things, the above is not a definition 
of a verb. 

1. An Adjective denotes action ; as, a quivering leaf, run- 
ning water, flying clouds, a breathing body. 

Adjectives denote some state ; as, I am ivell, he is sick, she 
is dead, he is safe, he is afraid, he is alive. 

2. Nouns denote some state ; as, he is a man of grief \ he is a 
man of sorrow, he is in great distress of mind, and body, I Tbave 
much misery, I am in constant fear. 

3. Prepositions denote some state ; as, he is under a mill- 
stone, he is under a tyrant, I am placed over, not under these 
men, and I must control them, he is in good heart. 

4. Adverbs denote some slate ; as, he is out of temper, he 
fell out with his friend, he fell in with this gentleman in June 
last ; one is, but the other is not 

Note. — Here not denotes a state of death, or non-existence. 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 123 

IV. Nouns, and Adjectives may denote the same ideas ; as, 
a man of virtue, a virtuous man, a man of merit, he is a meritorious 
man, he is a ivorthy man, he is a man of worth. 

V. Nouns, and Adverbs denote the same ideas ; as, he writes 
with accuracy, he writes accurately. 

VI. Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives, and Adverbs denote the 
same ideas ; as, he is a man of merit, he merits praise, he is a 
meritorious man, he conducted himself meritoriously. 

Who from the preceding exhibition, cannot see that the British 
Grammarians have attempted what can never be accomplished ; 
Darnel y, a consistent classification of words upon their signification. 

A hypothetical tree, comprising as many parts as our language 
has words, each part yielding fruit, and the whole tree producing 
as many kinds of fruit as the British Grammarians have made 
parts of speech, may* aid in giving a clear view of the erroneous 
course pursued by these distinguished scholars in forming the old 
theory of English Grammar. 

Now, what construction, organization, is to the frame-work of 
this tree, grammar is to the frame-work of language. And, as 
the construction, the organization of the tree, is not the fruit 
which its component parts yield, so the grammar of a language, is 
not the Dictionary ideas which its words express. As grammar 
bears the same relation to language, which organization does to 
the tree, the proper course in forming a system of grammar, is to 
divide the words of a sentence, not according to their dictionary 
signification, but according to their constructive principles. 

Would it not be absurd in forming a book from which to learn 
the construction of this tree, to make the classification of the 
different parts according to the kind of fruit, which each part 
yields % This course would abandon the structure of the tree, 
and bring into the same class, parts, sustaining very different 
constructive characters. Would it be at all important, in present- 
ing the mere frame-work of the tree, to ascertain how many kinds 
of fruit the whole tree yields ? Certainly not. 

The British Grammarians, in attempting to form a system from 
which the construction, the grammar, of our language, may be ac- 
quired, have founded their whole theory, and practice, upon the 
dictionary signification of the words in a sentence. Or, to pursue 
the figure, they have founded their theory, not upon the construc- 
tive principles of this tree, but upon the particular kind of fruit, 
which its different parts yield ! 

Their first step has been, as is obvious from their principles, to 



124 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

ascertain how many kinds of fruit the whole tree produces. These? 
they have ascertained to be ten — hence they have thrown the 
seventy thousand parts into ten classes, each part being classed, 
as they tell us, according to the kind of fruity which it yields. 
The parts are : 

1. Apple-part? 6. Pear-part, 

2. Peach-part? 7. Citron-part? 



S. Plumb-part? 8. Lemon-part, 

4. Cherry-part, 9. Currant^part? 



5. Grape-part, 10. Walnut-part. 

The first objection to this course is, that the theory abandons 
construction, which is the very science it sets out to teach ! The 
second? is that the practice abandons the theory itself ! for, in 
practice, the parts of the tree are not classed according to the 
kinds of fruit which they produce. Por instance, the branches 
which produce apples, are not referred to the apple-part class? 
while those which do not produce this kind of fruit? are often re- 
ferred to this class f 

DEFINITIONS. 

1. An Apple-part is a part which yields apples. 

1. An article is a word prefixed to substantives to point them 
out, and show how far their signification extends ; as, a woman? 
an eagle, the garden. 

A, an, and the do not yield apples — yet these parts of speech? 
are referred to the apple-part class. That is? a? an, and the do 
not point out, do not show how far the signification of their nouns 
extend — yet a, an, and the are ranked as articles. Does a point 
out what woman is meant ? Does an show what eagle is intended? 
And does the ascertain the identity of any garden ? To show 
what woman is meant, this, that, old, young, coloured, or white, 
might be used ; as, this woman, that woman, old woman, young 
woman, coloured woman, white woman. 

These words, however, which, to a greater? or less extent? do 
point out? are wrested from the class of articles, and forced into 
the class of adjectives. That is, these branches which actually 
produce apples, are compelled to leave their natural family, and 
take up their abode with strangers. 

To show what eagle is meant, bald might be used — and to point 
out what garden is intended, Washington might be employed ; as? 
Washington garden, bald eagle. 

Now, bald, and Washington^ do show how far the signification 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 125 

of their respective nouns, extends. These defining words, how- 
ever, are not referred to the article class ; but, contrary to the 
theory (which is that the parts of the tree are to be classed ac- 
cording to the kind of fruit, which they bear) they are forced 
into other families ! 

In reply to these strictures upon this discrepancy in the gram- 
matical disposition of a, an, and the, it may be said that it is not 
meant by the British Grammarians that a, an, and the point out 
without the aid of other words. Their definition of an article, 
however, does not call on other words to aid a, an, and the, in 
the work of measuring the noun's extent of application, But let 
this objection to these reflections stand— and what follows ? why, 
that all words which can point out the noun's application, either 
alone, or by the_aid of other words, are articles. And what ad- 
jective is there, which, by the aid of other words, cannot do this 
more minutely than a, an, or the ? 

Good boys that are properly educated, will become good men. 

In this example, good, aided by the section, that are properly 
educated, shows to what boys the word, boys, reacheSc 

II. PEACH-PART. 

A Peach-part is a part which yields fruit ! 

A substantive, or noun, is the name of any thing that exists, or 
of which we have any notion ; as, London, man, virtue, vice. 

As the definition of the peach-part, is universal in its applica- 
tion, so is that of a noun. As every part of the tree yields fruit, 
the definition of the peach-part embraces the whole tree. A peach- 
part is a part which yields fruit, 

Now, as every part of the tree yields fruit, so does every word 
in the language express some idea. This is in accordance with 
Mr. Murray's own definition of words, which says that — " Words 
are articulate sounds, used by common consent as the signs of 
our ideas. 7 ' 

How can a word be the sign of an idea, and not be the name of 
the idea ? For example — The book is under the table. 

As under is the sign, or name of a place, (of which we certainly 
can have a notion,) this preposition is a noun. 

But it may be said that under expresses a relation. Be it so — 
For, if under expresses a relation, it must be the name of a rela- 
tion—Because it is not possible for a word to express an idea un- 
less it is the name of an idea— It is the namitive power of a word, 

11* 



126 CLASS BOOK Of CRITICISM* 

which enables it to express, or signify an idea. Hencey if a Word 
has no namitive power, it can express no idea^ and, in truth, is no 
word at all ! 

The substitution of idea for thing, would not change the import 
of the British definition of a noun — A noun is the name of any 
idea which we have of any thing that exists 5 as ? 

John, and Foster write letters with accuracy. 

If the British definition of a noun, is sound, all the words ifj 
the above sentence, are nouns, for each is the name of something. 
As and is the first word in the sentence, which is not called a 
noun, it may be well to commence with this word. Why is not 
and a noun 1 Is not this conjunction the sign, the name of aft 
idea'? If not, why does the use of or change the sense 1 John, 
or Foster writes with accuracy. And, if neither and, nor or is a 
sign, a name of any idea, why does the omission of irath these 
conjunctions, change the sense of the sentence ? 

John Poster writes letters with accuracy. 

But it may be said that and does not mean a literal thing. 
This I grant, and while I concede this, I take occasion to remind 
the objector that accuracy does not mean a literal thing ; that 
virtue does not mean a literal thing ; and that vice does not mean 
a literal thing ! ! JNTor indeed is there any word in the language 
which does mean a literal thing. Words express the ideas which 
men form of things. Hear Mr. Murray on this point \ 

*• Words are articulate sounds^ used by common consent as the 
signs of our ideas" 

The definition of a noun, to be strictly literal, should read thus 
— A noun is the name of any thing that exists ) as, London, man? 
virtue, vice. 

The word, thing, as here used, includes something more than 
pen, book, knife ? &c, &c. ; it must embrace whatever exists, 
whether it is a being, fact, circumstance, action, mode, relation, 
time place, &c. 

" John, and Foster write with accuracy. 55 

The next word in this sentence, which is wrested in practice 
from tde hands of the old theory, is write. Write, is the name^ 
or the sign of an action ; or it is the name of an idea which men 
have formed of the act of making letters with a pen, or pencil. 
Why, then, is not write a noun? Does not the definition say that 
any word which is the name, or sign of any thing that exists, or 
of which we have a notion, is a noun ? And is not write the 
name, or sign of something of which we have a notion * 



class book of CitmcisM. 127 

One of two things is certain, namely, either write is the name 
of the act of forming letters with a pen, or pencil* or this ac* 
tion has no name. But is this action a nameless action ? Do not 
men know by what name to call it 1 Do they not at this advanced 
stage of things, know by what word, by what sign, by what 
name to designate this action which they so frequently perform 1 

« With." 

If with is not the sign, the name, of an idea* why is it employed 
in the expression of ideas ? And if with has no definite meaning 
of its own, why is it that the substitution of vnthout, produces so 
great a change in the sense of the sentence % 

With is the sign that the quality of which accuracy is the name? 
belongs to the letters. But vrithout is the sign, the name of the 
fact that this quality does not belong to them. Or in other 
words, with, is the name* or sign, of the idea of the presence of 
the quality which is denoted by accuracy. But without is th@ 
name of the idea of the absence of this quality. 

Take the word, nothing, in the following case : 

He went : but he saw nothing. 

Is nothing the name of a thing ? Just as much as without is^ 
and no more. Nothing is the name, or sign of the idea which we 
form of the absence of something — and without is the name^ or" 
sign, of the idea which we form of the absence of something. If 
nothing is a noun, why, then, is not without 1 

III. PLUM-PART, 

A Plum-part is a part which yields plums, 
A verb is a word which signifies, being, action? or suffering : as? 
" I am, I rule, I a,m mled" 

I find thousands of words which signify being, action, and suffer-- 
ing, that are not called verbs, 

That m 9 there are thousands of the branches of this tree, actually 
bearing plums* that are not referred to the plum-part family. For 
instance : 

The existence of man is short : but the being of God is eternab 
Man runs a short race here, he is seized with pains :- he expiree 
in the pangs of disease. 

Do not the nouns, existence, and being, express being ? Why ? 
then, are they not verbs ? 

Does not race express action? Why* then, is not this commoB 
fcoun, a verb ? 



128 CLASS BOOK Of CRITICISM. 

Bo not the words, pains, and pangs, signify suffering I Why, 
then, should not these common nouns be yielded up to the defini- 
tion of the verb, which imperiously demands them as its own ? 

Nor is this all, — for there are many parts of this tree, which 
do not bear plums^ that are actually referred to the plum-part 
class 5 as, 

1. John resembles his mother. 

2. The papers are extinct, 

3. Man can be just. 

4. John has one acre of ground, which he ought to cultivate* 

Resembles, are, can, has, and ought, do not express the ideas 
which the definition of the verb requires ; hence these words are 
not verbs by the authority of the definition. Here, then, is the 
double absurdity of withholding branches that yield plums, from 
the plumb*part class, and of referring the branches which do not 
bear this kind of fruit, to this class. 

IV. CHERRY-PART. 
A Cherry-part is a part which yields cherries. 

An adjective is a word which is added to a noun to express its 
quality ; as, 

1* He is a good boy. 

2. They me fine children. 

In considering this definition, it seems important to make a 
remark, or two upon the word, add. 

To add, says the Dictionary, u is to join something to that 
which was before" This is not only the language of the Dic- 
tionary, but that of sound sense, and universal usage. We can* 
not even think of adding any thing unless there is something 
already placed, to which we may add. No man talks about 
building an additional house unless he has one already up. Under 
this view of the subject, let me inquire which are the added words 
in the following assemblages : 

1. " He is a good boy." 

2. " They are fine children." 

In the vocal, as well as in the written formation, of the above 
sentences, is, a, good, and boy, would be added words — because, 
they must be introduced in addition to he, the first word spoken, 
or written. 

In the second sentence also, the words, when spoken, or writ- 
ten, in the formation of the sentence, must be divided into added, 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 129 

and unadded. They is the unadded word, while are, fine, and 
children, are the added ones. 

But as the words of a printed sentence, are all presented at 
the same point of time, a printed sentence can have no adjective ! 
What, can one of two houses which have been erected at the 
same time be denominated an additional house] It cannot be; 
the distinction is without sense. 

The word, added, not only indicates a state, but it implies the 
manner in which the state is produced. When the state of con- 
nection is produced in any manner different from that which the 
word, add, indicates the state is expressed, not by add, but by 
some other word 3 as, junction, conjunction, connection, conjee- 
tion, &c. 

Hence, when the right hand is put upon the left, the right 
hand is the added one. And this state of connection may be 
denominated adjection. — But, when both hands start from given 
points, and approximate till they come in contact, the state of 
connection thus produced, cannot be denominated adjection. 

Small apples. 

The only proof that small is an adjective, is derived from 
juxtaposition, nearness. And is not the word, apple, as near to 
the word, small, as small is to apple ? If, then, juxtaposition 
constitutes small an adjective, both words are adjectives. As 
both words are presented at the same time, and one is as near to 
the other as the other is to it, what is it which can render one 
an added word more than the other 1 Is it replied that small is 
more an adjective than apple because small expresses a quality ? 
The answer is that small does not fall within the first part of the 
definition of an adjective ; for small is not an added word — 
hence, unless the mere fact of expressing quality, renders a word 
an adjective, how can small be an adjective ? And if a word is 
an adjective merely from the fact of expressing quality, then the 
italic nouns in the following instances, are all adjectives : 

1. He_ is a man of virtue, 

2. This is a man of great strength* 

3. The roundness of the ball. 

4. The smoothness of the paper. 

Does not the noun, virtue, express a quality of the man % Does 
not strength also denote a quality of the man ? Does not round- 
ness denote a quality of the ball ! And does not smoothness 
signify a quality of the paper ? What, then, becomes of that 
definition of an adjective, which is founded upon the expression 
of a quality I 



130 CLASS BOOK 0¥ CRITICISM. 

Watts^ who has written much upon the subject of qualities, 
says : " Motion, (yes, action,) shape, quantity, weight, &c, &c, 
are properties or modes of bodies, and that wit, folly, love, doubt- 
ing, judgment, &c, &c, are modes, or qualities of the mind.' 5 

Again says Watts : " The term, mode, extends to all attributes 
whatever, including the most essential, and inward properties, 
and reaches even to actions themselves, as well as to the manner 
of action.' 5 

A quality is defined by Watts, and others, in the following 
manner : 

" A mode, or quality, is that property which cannot exist in, 
and of itself, but is always esteemed as belonging to, and as sub- 
sisting by the help of some substance which, for this reason is 
called its subject," 

Thus the words, solidity, brightness, similarity, roundness, soft- 
ness, accuracy, action, thinking, thought, to think, motion, &c, all 
denote qualities, of some subject, upon which they depend for 
their existence. 

But, let it be conceded that small, in the phrase, small apples, 
-comes within the first part of the definition of an adjective. That 
is, grant that small is an added word : and what follows 1 why, 
that all words whic-h are added to nouns to express qualities, are 
adjectives. Now, all verbs are as much added to nouns as is 
small, or any other adjective — verbs in general too express quality 
— therefore by virtue of this definition of an adjective, verbs in 
general are adjectives ! 

Blair, in speaking of the verb, says : 

" The verb is so far of the same nature with the adjective, that 
it expresses, like the adjective, an attribute or property of some 
person, or thing — thus, when I say the sun shines, shining is the 
attribute ascribed to the sun.' 5 — Blair's Lectures. 

The same doctrine is taught by Beattie — who says : 6C The 
verb, and adjective agree in this, both express qualities, or 
attributes. 55 

Thus it is asserted by these British oracles in English gram- 
mar, that verbs do express qualities, and that they are in this 
respect perfect adjectives. 

Nor is Murray himself less clear in his expression of this 
docn-ine. For in Etymology, he tells us that an adjective ex- 
presses the quality of a noun : and, in his Syntax he informs 
us that the verb expresses a quality of the noun : 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 131 

" The principal parts of a simple sentence, are the attribute, 
and the object; as, a wise man, governs his passions. Here, a 
wise man is the subject ; governs the attribute \ and his pt<s^io:is 
the object." — Murray. 

The only difference between the definition of an adjective, 
and that of a verb, arises from generalizing in one case, and par- 
ticularizing in the other. In defining an adjective, Grammarians 
make it express all qualities ; as, good, bad, high, run, walk, kc. 

But in defining a verb, they particularize being, action, and 
passion, and that too in a way which interdicts the idea that 
being, action, and passion, are qualities ! Thus, after including 
all animals in one definition, they define a horse in a way which 
indicates that a horse is not an animal of any kind ! 

Having included all qualities in the definition of an adjective, 
the proper course for the old school Grammar makers, and Gram- 
mar menders seems to be this : 

A verb is an adjective added to a noun, to express the quality 
of being, action, or suffering. 



CHAPTER XI.— The Old Definition of a Noun. 

I have devoted several years to the subject of grammar — and 
the main part of my attention has been given to four points ; 
namely, truth, and error in the science itself, and right, and wrong 
in the means of communicating it to others. And although Ihave 
read many books which professedly treat on this subject, I cannot 
bestow a very high enconium upon any. How much I have been 
benefitted by giving them a share of my attention for a few years 
I cannot tell. But, while I am constrained to say that the ad- 
vantage which I have derived, is too small to be considered a fair 
compensation for my labour, I cannot withhold the expression of 
my surprise, and even astonishment, at the introduction of these 
works into our schools. 

All the books through which I have plodded, seem to me to be 
founded upon detached principles of various sciences which are 
entirely unconnected with the subject of grammar. For example — 
action, yes, motion itself, is employed as one of the parts of these 
conflicting systems! Action, motion, however, is not a grammatical 
principle ! Nor does the absurdity stop here, for even actors 
themselves have been brought into them, and been made to play 
no inconsiderable part in the grammar farce ! And being, as 



182 €LASS BOOK OP CRITICISM, 

though these systems could hardly even exist without it, figures 
as a star of the first magnitude. 

A T ow action, agents, and being, may hold a conspicuous place in 
a system of metaphysics, but how they can become parts of a 
system of grammar, is not very clear to me. But what is as 
much of a curiosity as any thing which these grammar kaliedas- 
copes present, is the fact that their authors, after making action, 
actors, and objects the very foundation of their systems, proceed 
upon the ground that language is an abstract nothing, and a sen- 
tence, the mere child of the imagination ! "Whereas, language 
considered in its true light, seems to be as tangible as a clock, 
and a sentence as much a piece of mechanism as a watch. A 
sentence, indeed, is a frame-work of words ! A word is a house, 
a temple, constructed of sound, ink, paint, metal, or other matter, 
which is occupied by the meaning, the signification itself ! 

Thus a sentence is a little village, a cluster of buildings, 
various in their shape, size, and occupants. Thus, too, while a 
chapter is a whole ward of a verbal city, and a sentence one 
block of houses, a whole book is the entire city, peopled by those 
significant citizens that are engaged exclusively in the commerce 
of ideas. Language, then, is a frame-work, and grammar the 
architectural principles upon which this frame-work is formed. 
Hence he who desires to make a book to be used in teaching 
grammar, should confine himself to constructive principles. To 
say what the word must mean to be of any particular class, is to 
leave the frame-work of the house, and attempt to say something 
of its occupant. Eemember this — the mere Grammarian is not 
to teach the nature of the liquid, but the entire construction of 
the vessel. Or, it is not the province of the mere Grammarian 
to describe the fruit, but the frame-work of the basket which 
contains the fruit ! 

" A substantive or noun is the name of any thing that exists, 
or of which we have any notion ; as, London man, virtue, vice." 

Murray. 

That Mr. Murray should have given the above as a definition 
of a noun, is really astonishing ! If we compare it with his defi- 
nition of words in general, we shall find the two to be the same 
in substance, and nearly the same in expression ! Mark the uni- 
versality of the above attempt at the noun's definition ; 

" A noun is the name of anything that exists !" 

One is here led to ask, what are the names of things which do 
not exist, called ? ! J 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 133 

" Or a noun is the name of that tiling of which we have any 
notion." 

The name of the thing of which we have an idea, a notion, is 
a noun ! But the name of the thing of which we have no idea, 
no notion, is not a noun ! 

By the old definition things are divided into four distinct classes, 
viz., 

1. Things which exist! 

2. Things which exist not ! 

3. Things of which we have some idea ! 

4. Things of which we have no idea ! 

Every one who reads this definition of a noun with care, must 
see that it supposes things to be divided in this way. A noun is 
-the name of any thing which exists, or of any thing of which we 
have a notion. 

This definition of the noun compels the pupil to anticipate that 
the next part of speech will be defined as follows : 

An adjective is the name of a thing which does not exist, or of 
a thing of which we have no notion ! 

The old school Grammarians define words as follows : 

w Words are articulate sounds used by common consent as the 
signs of our ideas." 

Here they hold that ail words are signs ; and, as signs are 
neither more, nor less than names, they inadvertently say that all 
words are nouns ! This truth, however, they deny when they 
come to the process of parsing. 

1. " John writes letters accurately." 

John, a noun. 

writes, a verb ! 

letters, a noun. 

accurately, an adverb ! 

All the words in this sentence are signs, names ; yet only two 
of them are parsed as nouns ! 

To say that writes is a verb, is to affirm that writes is not a 
sign, not a name, of any thing ! 

But who can not see that writes is as much the name of the 
action as is John the sign of the actor ? If, then, John is a noun 
because it is a sign, a name, is not writes a noun ? 

By saying that accurately is an adverb, it is declared that this 
word is not a sign 9 not a name. But is there a child who can 

12 



134 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

read English, that can not see that accurately is as much the name 
of the manner of writing as is letters the sign of the things written % 

2. " John put his hand behind his head." 

John, a noun. 

put, a verb ! - 

his, a pronoun ! 

hand, a noun. 

behind, a preposition ! 

his, a pronoun ! 

head, a noun. 

1. Is not put the sign, the name of the action'? Why, then, is 
not this word a noun ? 

2. Is not his the sign of an idea ? Why, then, is his employed? 
Does not his express the same idea which John's would express 
was John's used in the place of his I And, would not John's be 
called a noun ! Why, then, is not his a noun ! ? John's is the 
sign, the name, of John, in his possessive relation to the hand — 
and, as his is the sign, the name, of the same thing, why is not 
his as clearly a noun as is John's ! ! ? Behind is the sign, the 
name of the place where John put his hand. And, as a noun is 
the name of any person, place, or thing, why is not this prepo- 
sition a noun ! ! ? Will it be said that behind is not the name of 
a place ! ? Reader, is not behind the sign, the name of the place 
in which it is said that John placed his hand ? Head is the name 
of the thing — and behind is the name of a place which belongs to 
that thing ! 

The true sense of the definition of a noun as given by the old 
school Grammarians, is that, 

A noun is the name of any thing whatever. And to this idea 
all Grammarians have adhered. — A word is what ? A word is 
the sign of anything whatever. Hence, there is no difference be- 
tween the definition of a noun, and the definition of all words. 
Sign, and name are the same in idea. 

1. Words are articulate sounds, used by common consent as the 
names of our ideas. 

2. A noun is the sign of anything of which we have a notion ; 
as ? man, London, virtue, vice, behind, under, red, high, in, out, at, 
with, near, on. 

If, therefore, the definition which the old school Grammarians 
give of words, embraces all words, the definition which they give 
of a noun, includes all words ! 

(i A noun is the name of any thing that exists, or of which we 
have a notion ..." 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 135 

Y\ T e ask who can reconcile this definition to the constructive 
genius of any language ? 

The practice under this definition proceeds upon the absurd 
ground that all verbs, all adjectives, all articles, all prepositions, 
all conjunctions, all adverbs, and all interjections, are not signs 
of ideas. Yes, it is the bold, the inconsistent, ground of this 
definition of a noun, that all these classes of words are redundant 
parts of that glorious production whose beauty, power, and use- 
fulness, are admired by man, and ascribed to God himself ! 

1. " Henry purchased leather in shoes." 

2. " John purchased leather shoes." 

" As Henry purchased leather in shoes, he must have purchased 
leather shoes." Or, 

" As Henry purchased leather which was made into shoes, he 
must have purchased leather shoes." 

1. " Leather" before in or which, is a noun. 

2. "Leather" before shoes is not a noun, but an adjective. 

Is not the word leather & sign, a name, in both places ? This 
word is not only a sign, a name in both instances ; but in both, 
it is the name of the same thing ! Yes, here is a word which is 
the name of the very same thing, (the material of which the shoes 
are made) in both instances — yet in one the word is parsed as a 
sign, a name, a noun, while in the other it is parsed as an 
adjective ! ! ! 

Still the perplexed pupil is unblushingly told, both by teacher., 
and author, that the name of a thing is a noun ! ! 

What is the difference between virtue, and virtuous 1 

1. "A woman of virtue" 

2. "A virtuous woman." 

A woman of virtue is a virtuous woman — and a virtuous woman 
is a woman of virtue. Yet virtue is called a noun — and virtuous 
an adjective ! But why this difference in the manner of parsing 
these two forms of the same word 1 Does the definition of a noun 
answer this question ? 

" A noun is the name of something." 

That is, a noun is the sign, of something. And is not virtuous 
the sign, the name of something ? If not, virtue is not the name 
of any thing : virtue, and virtuous, express the same idea, the 
same thing. Hence, if virtuous is excluded from the noun family 
upon the ground that it is not the name of any thing, virtue is an 
illegitimate member of this family of words ! 



138 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

We admit that there is a grammatical difference between these 
two forms, of the same word. But we say that; this difference 
should be expressed in the definition of the noun. The definition 
which expresses that part of speech trait of character, which is 
peculiar to the noun, must express that particular property which 
makes virtue grammatically different from virtuous. 

Both virtue and virtuous are names. Hence the definition 
which is founded upon the name trait of character must include 
both forms. 

When virtuous is used as a foundation name in the frame-work 
of a sentence, it is used in the primitive form ; as, 

" Virtue is commendable." 

But, when virtue is used as a mere branch, it is employed in 
one of its two derivative forms ; as, 

" Virtuous persons live virtuously" 

Virtue, virtuous, virtuously. 

These are one word in three different forms. Under one of its 
forms, this word is not only able to sustain itself, but other words 
which may depend upon it ; as, 

Inflexible virtue. Stern virtue. 

But when virtue becomes virtuous, and virtuously, it resembles 
a drunken man : it can hardly stand alone ; as, 

Virtuous. 
The mind is driven to inquire — virtuous what ? What is 
virtuous 1 

The word in this form is constantly reaching for some post, 
pump, chair, or wall, against which to lean ! 

Virtue, like the man before he is intoxicated, stands without 
reeling, without staggering j as, 

Virtue. 
The mind sees that virtue can sustain itself — hence it is not 
engaged in searching for something on which virtue can rest. 

When the word is in that form which enables it to sustain itself, 
and other words also, it is parsed as a noun ; as, 

A woman of virtue. 

But when it is in a form which deprives it of self-sustaining 
power, it is parsed as an adjective, or as an adverb ; as, 

" Virtuous persons live virtuously." 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 137 

Noun, noun ! What a name for a word ! " JYoun," is derived 
from the Latin nomcn, a name ! ! 

JSToun, and name, then, are synonymous. Hence the definition 
which the old school Grammarians give of a noun is as follows — » 

1. A noun is the noun of any thing which exists, or of which 
we have a notion ! Or, 

2. A name is the name of any thing which exists, or of which 
we have a notion ! ! 

And as nominative is made from the Latin, nomen, nominative 
is much the same as name. Here then, are three technicals all 
derived from the same source— all having the same import ; and 
all applied to one part of speech, to the confusion of both teacher 
and pupil. 

" John laughs" 

John, a noun, in the nominative case to is ! 
That is, John is a name> in the name case to is ! ! 

JVbun is name — and name is noun — and nominative is as much 
noun as name ! 

( name. 
The whole batch is nonsense. \ noun. 



nominative. 



Let us reneat the old definition.— 



A noun or substantive is the name of any thing that exists 
or of which we have any notion ) as, Foster makes carding 
machines. 

The words, Foster, and machines^ are called nouns. And why J 
Because they are the names of things of which we have a notion ! 

And what is the word, makes, called ? Makes is a verb ! Why 
not a noun 1 Surely makes must be the name of an action of 
which Foster has a notion ; for, how can he construct these com- 
plicated machines without a notion of the action which he per- 
forms % 

" The last race was run by these two horses." 

Race is a noun — but run is a verb ! 

Now reader, observe this. — The definition of a noun, and that 

of a verb, are founded upon the signification of the words which 

are called nouns, and verbs. And here are two words which 

signify the same action, yet one is called a noun, the other a verb ! 

Yes, race is called a noun ! But run, which denotes the same 

action, is called a verb ! 

12* 



188 CLASS BOOK OF.CRmCML 

That word which denotes a thing of which we can have a 
notion, is a noun ; as, the last raGe was fun by these horses ! ! 
But what is a verb ? "A verb is a word which signifies beings 
action, or suffering ; as, the last face was run by these horses ! 

I* Which word denotes something of which we can have a 
tiotion-^is it face, or fun ? Why both-— then both are nouns ! 
Which words denotes action 1 Both denote action — then both 
are verbs ! 

AQAm-^-For, to, from, through, &c, are called prepositions.-^ 
By this fact, it seems that the old school Grammarians consider 
that these words are not signs, not the names of any thing which 
exist, or of which we have a notion. But a slight attention to 
the following illustration, will show that these words are the signs 
of things that exist, and of which, we have notions not less clear 
than are those which we form of " London, man, virtue, viceP 



Prom : 


Beginning. 


Through : 


Door- 


To: 


End. 


For: 


Cause. 



Prom is synonymous with beginning, through with door, to with 
end) for with cause. 

from through to 

John rode beginning Philadelphia, door New Jersy, end New 

for 
York, cause his brother, 

Now, as these prepositions are evidently the names of things 
which exist, and of which we have a clear notion, we trust, that 
the friends to the old theory, will abandon this definition of a 
noun 5 or consent to call these prepositions, nouns* 

Further, — u He writes accurately. 55 

" The pupil writes with ACCURACY. 5 * 

Accurately is styled an adverb. This word, however, should^ 
from the old definition of a noun, be called a noun. The word is 
the name of the manner of writing : and it follows that the mind 
has no idea of this manner, or that the word, accurately, is inac- 3 
curately named ! 

Waiving the misnomer in this case, let us examine the denomi-* 
nation of the word which denotes the same thing, in the following 

instance : 

The pupil writes with accuracy* 



CLASS BOOK OF CRlTlClSM* 139 

Here, accuracy, is the sign of that for which accurately stands 
in the first instance. But is accuracy called an adverb 1 Accuracy 
is denominated a noun* Were we to take these classifications 
with the definition of the noun 5 as a rule of judging, must we not 
say that in the first instance, the mind has no idea of the manner 
of writing, while in the last; it has a clear, a distinct notion of it t 

The definition of the noun, includes too much to comport with 
the parsing of the language. By the definition, all words are 
nouns ; but in the solution of the language^ a small part cornea 
under the denomination of noun, 

Accuracy, and accurately are two forms of the same word. The 
import of the word^ is the same under both modifications. Accu* 
racy differs from accurately, only in its degree of constructive 
importance in the section. Accuracy is employed as the founda* 
Hon of the section, and is that to which the word with is appended* 

Accurately in point of construction, is employed as a branch 
part of the section, and is two constructive degrees from the foun* 
dation of the section to which it belongs. Accuracy is the inde- 
pendent form ) that is, a form in which the name is when it is 
used without requiring^ or implying, a constructive dependenc® 
upon any other word. Accurately is the social, or dependent 
form, and implies, and requires constructive dependence upon 
another word of higher rank. 

In the spirit of Mr. Murray's definition, both accuracy, and 
accurately are nouns \ because^ his definition is founded on the 
capacity of a word to denote some idea I 

The definition in the Rational system^ being founded on Con* 
B'tructive importance, or mechanical independence} accuracy only^ 
can become a noun* All the words denominated nouns in parsing 
the language, are exalted, and linked together by their Construe* 
live rank, — by their power to stand alone, and thus brought into 
the same family • hence 5 a definition of a noun, to include all 
words denominated nouns in the solution of the language,, with- 
out embracing any more 3 must be founded on this constructive 
importance. A definition, founded on this, is a Hercules against 
the sophist, and a blazing torch in the hand of the learner* 

We will fancy that the common definition of a noun is presented 
to a child ; and, after he has fairly perused it, let it be supposed 
that the following sentence is placed before him^ and that he is 
requested to select the nouns which it contains ? 

64 Stephen built the red house ; but Samuel^ the yellow house. ^ 

Now, then, as a noun is the name of any thing which we can 
$ee^ feel, taste, or discourse of* would not the child be as likely 



140 CLaSS i^oOK of CRiiiCiSM* 

to call red, and yellov) nouns as house? Gr$ will it be said that 
these adjectives are the names, the signs, of things which do not 
exist, of things that we cannot see ? Perhaps, too, it may be 
replied, that these colours are not things ; hence, yellow, and red 
cannot be nouns ! We would ask those who reason thus, whether 
virtue, vice, necessity, sweetness, &c, are things 1 We would ask, 
too, whether a man is a thing % and whether London is a thing ? 
The names, London, man, virtue, vice^ &c, are nouns. 

a A noun is the name of any thing that exists ; as, man^ 
London, virtue, vice." 

/Is man, London, virtue, and vice are nouns, they are names. 
But what renders these words names ? The definition of words 
gives these four signs nothing which it does not bestow upon all 
other words. How, then, can these four words be any more 
names than in, red, black, green, Walks, writes, here, &c. % 

It is the sign trait of character, which renders man$ London, 
virtue, and vice, names. And have not all words this very trait ? 
Why, then, are not all words rendered names by it ? If the sign 
trait can render man, London, virtue, and vice, names, can it not 
render all other words names ? Why, then, are not all other 
words as much nouns as these four % 

Words are articulate sounds used by common consent as the 
signs of our ideas*- — Murray* 

A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, any thing 
which exists, any thing of which you can have a notion.— Murray. 

Bead the following with care 

1. If all words are signs, under, over, &c, are signs : all words 
are signs ; therefore •under, over> &c, are signs. | 

2. If all signs are names, vnder, over, &c, are names : all signs 
are names ; therefore under, over, &c, are names. 

3. If all names are nouns, under, over, &c, are nouns : all 
names are nouns ; therefore under, over, &c, are nouns ! 

The Substitute. 

A DENOMINATION OF WORDS. 

A denomination of words is a number of verbal signs, which 
have the same characteristic mark. 

[The word, noun, means but one word, as John is a noun. But , 
the words, noun denomination, mean an entire class of words, the 
whole family of nouns.] 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 14] 

It seems perfectly inconsistent with philosophy, that a system 
of grammar should not contain class names. 

The word, book, is a noun ; but this word is not a class of 
words ! The word, walks, is a verb ; but as the word, walks, is 
not a class of words, how can it be said that the word, verb, is the 
name of a class of words ? 

To supply this deficiency, it seems necessary to have a technical 
term which means a class of words. Therefore I have employed 
the word, denomination, in the sense of a class of words. 

Characteristic. 

In grammar, a characteristic is the property by which a word is 
thrown into a particular denomination. 

Classification, 

The words of the English language are divided into ten denomi- 
nations. But, as in analyzing words, it is convenient to speak 
of them singly, each member of a denomination, receives, as its 
individual name, the particular distinctive epithet which designates 
its own denomination. 

In English, there are ten denominations of words, viz. : 

1. Noun denomination. 

2. Pronoun denomination. 

3. Verb denomination. 

4. Preposition denomination. 

5. Conjunction, denomination. 

6. Adjective denomination. 

7. Subadjective denomination. 

8. Adverb denomination. 

9. Subadverb denomination. 
10. Interjection denomination. 

There is a serious objection to the following language which is 
used by the old school Grammarians : 

" There are ten parts of speech" 

As every word in a language is a part of it, there must be as 
many parts of speech as there are words in a language. Every 
verb is a part of a language. Hence if there are ten thousand 
verbs in the English language, the verbs alone make ten thou- 
sand parts of speech ! ! 

1. THE NOUN DENOMINATION. 

The word, trunk, expresses not only an ability to stand alone, 
but a capacity to sustain branch matter. 



142 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

Now, whether an object becomes trunklike from the circum- 
stance that it is taken alone, or from the consideration that it is 
taken with branch matter which it is made to sustain, the namz 
by which it is presented, is a noun ; as, ring, large gold ring. 

In the first, the ring is taken alone — it is able to stand by it- 
self — hence the ring, in this isolated state, resembles a trunk 
without a branch. 

In the second instance, the ring is taken in connection with 
branch matter which cannot sustain itself, for the size, and kind 
cannot stand without the aid of the ring to which they naturally 
belong, and on which, they as naturally depend as do the branches 
upon the trunk. 

In the following, the ring is presented by the word, it — but, as 
this little word is not the name of any object, the word, it, is not 
of the noun denomination. 

That is a beautiful ring — may I examine it. 

Additional Illustration. 

1. Ring dove. 

Why is not ring, in this example, a noun ? 

Ring here, is not even a trunk word. Ring, in this instance, 
is not only not a trunk word, but it is not the name of an object 
which holds a trunk rank in the mind's collocation of the two 
things mentioned in the example. Ring, in this instance, is a 
branch word, and is the name of a distinctive mark which holds a 
branch rank in the mind's collocation, or disposition of it in 
respect to the dove. 

REMARK. 

What the trunk is to the branch parts in the frame-work of a 
tree, the noun is to the branch words in the framework of a sec- 
tion \ as, Good gold, Moses smote the rock. Gold, Moses, and 
rock are nouns. 

It is curious to see the course which the formers of the old 
theory of grammar, have taken to appear to be consistent. In 
their definition of a noun, they affect to think that all words are 
not signs, not names ! They start out with the position that 
there are ten parts of speech. And then they construct their 
definition of a noun in a way which implies that there is but one 
class of words that are signs of our ideas. 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 



143 



« Words are articulate sounds used by common consent as the 
sig?u, the names, of our ideas.' 5 

" There are ten, or there are nine parts of speech in English ; 
namely, noun, article, verb, adjective, conjunction, preposition, 
adverb, participle, pronoun, and interjection." 

1. " Any word which is the sign of an idea, is a noun ; as, man, 
virtue, vice." 

But, says the objector, this is not the exact phraseology of the 
old definition of a noun. We quote the sense, not the words. 
The old school Grammarians having defined all the words^ to be 
signs, they select a certain class which they define by substituting 
name for sign ! And it is really amusing to observe the great 
pains which they have taken to avoid the use of both sign, and 
name, in defining the other classes of words, In defining the 
article, they do not say in so many words, that an article is the 
name of the extent of a noun's signification. But, instead of say- 
ing that an article is the name of the noun's extent of signification, 
by°the direct use of the word, name, they say it in the following 
way: 

" An article is a word placed before nouns to point them out, 
and show how far their signification extends /" 

To show the extent ! That is, to name, to signify, to express, 
the noun's extent of application, as the sign, or name, of this ex- 
tent ! There is no other way in which an article can show a 
noun's extent of application. 

2. In defining the conjunction, they use the following phrase- 
ology : 

" A conjunction is a part of speech that is chiefiy used to con- 
nect sentences." 

But in what way does a conjunction connect sentences ? Why, 
by expressing, by signifying, by pointing out that which produces 
the connection. That which produces the connection between 
sentences, may be the cause, the effect, the opposition, the simi- 
larity, &c, &c, which exist in any certain cases. For instance 
" It was a cold day, — therefore I remained in the house." 

My remaining within is an effect of which the conjunction, 
therefore, is the sign, or name. 



144 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

Again: — "He came home, because he wished to see his 
friends." 

His wish to see his friends was the cause that he came home ; 
and, of this cause the conjunction, because, is the name, or 
sign. We do not mean to be understood to say, that because is 
the name of wishing as an action, but as a cause. The word, 
wished, is the name of this event of the mind, as an action. 
But this action has a causative relation, or connection with the 
action of returning ; and because is the name, the sign, of this 
causative connection. Let us, then, say that, 

A conjunction is the sign, or name of those relative circum- 
stances which produce a connection between sentences ; as, 
John, is good, therefore he is happy. But his brother is unhappy, 
because he is bad. 

3. They tell us that an adjective is a part of speech which 
expresses some quality of a noun ; as, Red cloth, Blue eyes, 
Great minds. 

But why not say at once that. 

An adjective is the name of the quality of a noun ; as, Round 
table, Square timber ? 

But they choose to say that an adjective is a part of speech 
which expi % esses some quality ! How can a word express a quality 
unless it is the name, or sign, of quality ! 1 

4. " A verb is a word which signifies being, action, or suffer- 
ing ; as, I am, I walk, my head aches. 

Why not say at once, 

A verb is the name of being, action, or suffering? Because 
this way of expressing the idea, would lay the axe at the very 
root of their definition of a noun. A noun is the name* No 
other signs are to be called names ! ! To avoid the use of 
" name" they choose to say that a verb signifies as a name ! 

5. " An adverb is a word joined to verbs, adjectives, parti- 
ciples, and to other adverbs, to express some quality, or circum- 
stance respecting it." 

To express some quality. That is, to express some quality as 
the sign, or name of it ! 

Why not say, then, that, 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 145 

An adverb is the name of some quality, or circumstance of the 
verb, adjective, participle, or adverb. 

6. " A preposition serves to connece words with one another, 
and to show a relation between them." 

What we have said upon the conjunction, is applicable to the 
preposition also. 

A preposition is the name of the relative circumstances which 
connect one word with another. 

7. " A pronoun is a word which is used to avoid the too fre- 
quent repetition of a noun. 55 

A pronoun is a secondary name, and is used to prevent the 
too frequent repetition of a noun, the primary name ; as, Jane 
lost the book, and Charles found it. (Book, the primary, and it 
the secondary name.) 

8. An interjection is the name of some sudden emotion of joy, 
fear, dislike, &c. 

We have thus demonstrated that each class of words can be 
defined by the use of name. Having done this, we would remark 
that we believe that the definitions in which we have used the 
word, name, are nearly as unsound in principle, as those from 
which the old school Grammarians have carefully excluded this 
word. In the above definitions, we have built upon the principles 
on which the old school authors have. 

Ye that are opposed to a revolution in grammatical system, 
answer these arguments, — and do it in a public, candid 
manner. 

Nouns are nominative, and objective. 

I may be told that I condemn the use of the word, nomi- 
native. True, I have condemned the use of this word in the 
sense of namitive* I use the word, nominative, in the sense 
of sentence-forming. And case, I do not use at all. I divide 
nouns into nominative, and objective. A nominative noun is ono 
which aids the verb in forming the sentence character, which is 
illustrated on the next page. 

13 



146 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 



DENOMINATIONS OE WORDS. 



A Denomination of words, is a class of words. 

In English, there are ten Denominations of words, narueh: 

1. JSfoun Denomination. 

2. Pronoun Denomination. 

3. Verb Denomination. 

4. Preposition Denomination. 

5. Conjunction Denomination. 

6. Adjective Denomination. 

7. Sub-Adjective Denomination. 

8. Adverb Denomination. 

9. Sub-Adverb Denomination. 
10. Interjection Denomination. 

I. THE NOUN DENOMINATION. 
The Noun denomination is the large class of Trunk names which 
are nominative, and objective in the same form ; as, 

Nominative. Objective 

1. The Bock was smitten by Moses. 

Nominative. Objective. 

2. Moses smote the Rock. 

Note I. Nouns have nominative power which they exert, or suspend without 
any change of form. 

When a noun aids a verb in forming the sentensic diction of the 
section, it is a nominative noun ; as, the rock was smitten by Moses. 
{Rock.'] 

When a noun renders no aid in forming the sentensic diction of 
the section, it is an objective noun ; as, Moses smote the rock. [Rock. 

In the first, rock, and was produce the sentensic diction, the affirmation, of 
the section, by their concurrent action. 

In the second, Moses, and smote produce the sentensic diction "by their con- 
current action. Hence, in the second, the sentensic diction is formed without 
any aid from the word, rock. Therefore, in the second, rock is an objective noun. 

In the first, rock-exerts its nominative, its sentence forming power ; but in 
the second, this noun, rock, without any change of form, suspends the exer- 
tion of this power. 
Ked Leather. 

Note II. Red is not a noun ; but redness is. Red, and redness are both names ; and 
both forms of this one word, mean the same color. Red is a mere branch name, whereas red- 
ness is a trunk name : as, red leather. The redness of the leather. 

Note III. The words which can be used either as trunk names, or branch names, are of the 
ncun deicmination, only where they are of the trunk order ; as, ring, ring dove. 

In the first, ring is of the noun denomination ; in the second, 
ring is a mere- branch nauv3 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 147 



CHAPTER XII.— Case in English. 

In some languages there are certain endings, or terminations , 
which are called case. These terminations are as significant as 
the words to which they belong ; each pointing out, not only a 
particular relation, but also the particular words between which 
this relation exists. But, upon the nouns in our language, no 
such endings are to be found. 

It is possible, however, that the caseless condition of a few 
nouns in the Latin, may be resorted to, to justify the use of case 
in English ; and to meet this circumstance in advance, we shall 
make a few remarks upon this point. And first, if the principles 
of another language, are to be seized as a rule by which to try 
our position with respect to case in English, we shall take the 
general principles, not the idiomatic eccentricities of that language. 
The Latin, so far as it respects cases, proceeds on the principle 
of terminations. And the fact that cases is applied in some few 
instances where the noun has no termination, certainly never can 
be taken as ground for deciding the broad principle of case in our 
own language. Were case terminations in the Latin, a mere 
deviation from the general principles of that language, case would 
be improperly used in its grammatical solution. But, as there 
are few instances in which there is not a case termination, the 
general case principles of Latin nouns involve terminations, hence 
case may be considered somewhat applicable to the nouns in that 
language. 

In English no noun has a case form. The noun in the posses- 
sive case, is nothing but an adjective ; as, John's hat. The part 
which is called the case, (Js) is as much an adjective affix, as is 
ic> al, or me. Among the pronouns, there are only three, or 
four which vary in their form as they pass, and repass from the 
nominative to the adjective. 

In every regular language, the nouns have certain forms, or 
inflections which are called the cases of this class of words. 

A regular language, however, is very different from ours. A 
regular language, is rich in terminations ; ours is an irregular 
one, and is lean, poor, in grammatical trappings. The genius of 
the English language does not afford our nouns these significant 
terminations. And as our language is without the terminations, 
let our Grammar be without their name. Case is the name of 
these terminations ; and did the forms pertain to our nouns, their 
name might be a proper part of our grammar. But, as it is, to 
give to youth the term, case, as means to enable them to under- 



148 CLASS BOOK Otf CRITICISM. 

stand any of the principles of the English language, is to hand a 
child a phial, and to bid him fill it with a very particular medicine, 
when but a mere speck of such an article has ever existed in the 
whole materia medica ! 

But, in reply, it will be said, that the desideratum is to enable 
the learner to acquire a knowledge of that relation which exists 
between the verb, and the nouns that are parsed with it : and, 
because this is effected by the present theory of cases, the end is 
completely answered. To this it may be replied, that even with- 
out any fixed case theory, the same knowledge could be acquired. 
But does the possibility of accomplishing without instruments, do 
away with their use ? or does the certainty of success with imperfect 
means, destroy the importance of those that are perfect % If so, 
because D. can dig with his hands, to him, a spade is of no use ! 

The pronoun me, is said to be the objective case of L But case 
means form, shape, termination. The word, me, however, is a dis- 
tinct, a new, a different word ! Was me, a mere affix, placed 
thus, — Ime, me, might then be said to be the case of 1. 

The only pronouns in our language, which have the nominative 
case, are they, thou, he, and who. For they, and them, may be 
considered the same word in different cases, or forms. Thou, and 
thee, are different cases of the same word. He, and him, are 
different forms, or cases of the same word. Who, and whom, are 
different cases of the same word. (Book II. p. 23.) 

But she, and her, are two different words. We, and us, are 
different words ; and not different cases, or fo?-ms, of the same 
word. 

The pronouns, which, it, you, what, as, mine, yours, &c, are 
nominative, and objectives without any variation in form — hence 
they have nothing at all, which can be called case ! Why, then, 
the question recurs, have we imported the term, case, this useless, 
this worse than useless commodity, from Rome to America % We 
have as much use for it as a man who is without a horse, would 
have for a saddle ! Why should a country that has no grain to 
grind, erect mills to make flour ! Why should the people of 
America attach a fanciful property to their language ? Why, 
merely for the sake of using a Roman instrument in handling this 
property ! ! This case theory, [in the English language, is an 
artificial hue which hides the native colour from the eyes of the 
child. 

The word, case, however, is not applicable to the terminations 
of which we have spoken in this chapter. 



CLASS BOOK OP CRITICISM. 



149 



« Case," is made from the Latin, casus, which is from, cado, to 
fall. But there is nothing about these terminations which can be 
denominated falling. Grammarians have generally attempted to 
illustrate the' six cases by the following diagram : 




It may be well to show here the true meaning of the word, 
ewe,— hence I shall give its etymology. The word, case, is 
derived from the Latin, casus ; and casus is made from the Latin, 
cado, to fall. Case, then, means that which falls, comes, or hap- 
pens. In grammar, case, means a change of termination, to express 
the exact relation which the word having the termination bears to 
another word. The word, liber, means a book ; hbn, means 0/ a 
book; and libro, signifies to a book. 

Now, ri and ro are cases ; but is er a case ? from what has 
liber fallen % Is er a declension of liber ? It is not._ How, then, 
can liber be the nominative case? Liber is the original word, 
it has the er, not as a termination, but as a part of the original 
word. Liber may be called a nominative noun ; but, not a noun 
in the nominative case. Strictly speaking this noun has the 
oblique cases only. 

The following is -from Bailey's English Grammar, p. 21. 

" Nouns have three cases." 

« The nominative case— so called when it is the name of a sub- 
ject in relation to the verb." 

« The possessive case denotes possession ;" as, He took the 
hen's eggs to market, the Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank is in 
Philadelphia. 

Does the hen own the eggs ! Do the farmers own the bank 1 

I have Murray's Grammar. 
Does Murray own the Grammar 1 

" The objective case is the object of an action, or of a relation;" 
as, the rock was smitten by Moses ! ! I am by him ! ! ! 

13* 



1 50 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

The nominative as well as the vocative has been uniformly 
denominated the straight, the perpendicular, ease. These are 
represented in the straight line. The genitive, dative, accusative, 
and the ablative have been uniformly styled the falling, the obliqu- 
ing, cases. These are represented by the four lines which fall 
off from the nominative, or straight line. It really seems that 
Grammarians have ever been distinguished by gross absurdity. 
The ancient Grammarians started with the idea that the genitive, da- 
tive^ accusative, and the ablative might be considered as falling out 
of the nominative — and, as " casus," means falling, they presumed 
that case could be applied with marked propriety. But, as the 
nominative, and vocative, do not fall from any thing, how can 
the word, case, be applicable to these ! % This subject may be 
rendered perfectly clear even to the child. From the fact that 
case means a falling, Grammarians have applied it to the different 
changes which some words undergo in their variation from the 
primitives ; as ? 

CASE. 

writes. 

writetk 

writ est. : 

wrote. 

wrotest. 

writing. 

written. 

These modifications may be called case because they are 
considered to fall from. But from what do these cases fall ? 
from write. 

What is write called ? Write also is a case 1 1 ! Well, from 
what does write fall ? from nothing at all ! ! ! 

Write is called the straight, the perpendicular, case ! ! That is? 
write is fall no fall ! ! 

CASE. CASE. 

write ! ! writest. 

writes, 
writeth. 
wrote, 
wrotest. 
written, 
writing 

This illustration,, however, gives the old school Grammarians 
much more than they are justly entitled to. Writest, writes, 
writetk, &c, are really variations, from write,, But the failings 



CLASS BOOK OP CRITICISM. 151 

to which the old school Grammarians apply the word, case, are 
fancied into being ! This is obvious from the following which we 
have taken from the Greek Grammar of Professor Crosby : 

Case is from casus, from cado, to fall out, to happen. 

" From this fancied falling off," says Professor Crosby, in his 
Greek Grammar, " came the word, case, which was at length ap- 
plied as a- general term to all nouns." 

The reader will observe that Professor Crosby calls it a fancied 
falling off ; and we presume that one moment's attention to the 
subject as presented in the following examples, will satisfy the 
reader that the Professor is happy in the selection of the epithet^ 
fancied ! 

1. 2. 

1. Trees grow among trees, 

Trees number 1, is in the nominative case. 
Trees number 2, is in the objective case ! 

Does trees number 2, vary, deviate, from trees number 1 ? Has 
not trees number 2 — the same letters which constitute trees 
number 1 % Where, then, is this falling off? In the imagination 
only ! It is surely a fancied falling off' ! 

The word, case, is not only inappropriate because of its inability 
to express the true idea, but because of its absolute want of a 
technical character. Case is a word in very common use- — and, 
as it is applied to almost every thing in some way, or other, it 
has no technical character whatever. Besides, we have no use 
for the word in grammar. The true idea which the old school 
Grammarians attempt in vain to express by the word, case, may 
be well denoted by nominative, and objective, nouns 

We will now give a few of the numerous applications of case, 
which Dr. Bullions, and many others, affirm disqualify, a word 
for technical use. 

1. Book case, Knife case, Watch case. 

2. A printer's case should be in the genitive case. 

3. "Henry purchased a case of crown glass." 

4. Can you case this hat ? 

That is cover it with some sort of case which will preserve it. 

5. Have you made his case your own ? 

6. His case is desperate. 

7. This is clearly a case of yellow fever. 

8. " My old horse is in a better case than my colt." 

9. The lawyer stated the case. 
LO. This case will never be tried. 



152 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

11. This was an action on the case, 

12. In case he gains his case, will he be in the nominative, or 
vocative case $ 

Having shown that case in English is nothing but the imagina- 
tion of the old school Grammarians, we shall pass on to the next 
branch of this subject, namely, the three cases which these scholars 
have contrived to form from no case ! 

The cases are three 5 viz., 

1. The nominative, 

2. The possessive, and 

3. The objective. 



CHAPTER XIII.— Of the Nominative Case. 

Although we consider the different definitions of the nomina- 
tive case to be much the same, both in phraseology, and sub- 
stance,, yet we feel bound to examine them all. But before we 
commence the examination, we invite the reader's attention to the 
very particular manner which some have adopted to slide over 
this subject, with as little parade as possible ! 

Mr. Murray, in treating of the noun, gives a definition of the 
noun itself, and then divides this part of speech into common, and 
proper. In treating of number, the same author gives a definition 
of number itself, and then makes the subdivision, into singular, 
and plural. When he arrives at the gender, he gives a definition 
of gender, and then, adds that there are three genders ; namely, 
masculine, feminine, and neuter. But when Mr. Murray comes 
to case, he gives no definition of it whatever ! ! The author in- 
troduces the subject of number as follows : 

" Section 3. Of Number. 

" Number is the consideration of an object, as one or more. 95 

" Substantives are of two numbers, the singular, and the 
plural." 

Now mark the difference, reader— 

" Section 4. Of Case. 

<c In English substantives have three cases, the nominative, 
the possessive, and the objective." 

Here we find Mr. Murray informing the pupil how many cases 
substantives have ; yes even before he attempts to tell him what 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 153 

case itself is! ! Mr. Murray could find nothing in our language 
which can be denominated, case — hence he has made no attempt 
to define case. 

The next work which we shall notice, is a production, entitled, 
" Elements of English Grammar, &c. By Austin Osgood 
Hubbard, A. B." This book was published in 1827. The 
manner of treating the subject of case as presented by Mr. Hub- 
bard, is as follows : 

" CASE." 

" Cases show the relations of nouns and pronouns to other 
words." 

Mr. Hubbard here attempts to define case — but instead of tell- 
ing what case is, he informs the pupil what it does ! ! The subject 
of case comes before Mr. Hubbard in this light— "What is case ?" 
But Mr. Hubbard evades the question by attempting to say, not 
what case is, but what case does ! 

• He continues — 

" The nominative case is the subject of the verb ; as, / read, 
we write." 

But is it this case itself which is the subject of the verb ? So 
declares our author! If, therefore, case is a "showing," and 
the nominative case is the subject of the verb, 2, and we have 
no allusion to persons as is generally thought, but to this show- 
ing of which Mr. Hubbard speaks ! ! Enough of this, however, 
—we have a question for Mr. Hubbard's " patient and accurate 
research," to solve. It is this— Is the word, 2, the subject of 
the verb, read, or is the person himself the subject ? 

We have another— Is the word, we, the subject of the verb, 
white, or are the persons themselves the subject ? 

Now, if the word itself is the subject of the verb, then, indeed, 
does Mr. Murray's definition of the nominative case seem altogether 
unintelligible ; for he says that the " nominative case simply ex- 
presses the subject of the verb." 

If the word itself is the subject of the verb, then Mr. Murray 
has said in his definition, nothing more than this : namely, the 
nominative case simply expresses itself ! Or, in other words — 
the noun in the nominative case, simply expresses, or signifies 
itself! To say, then, that " John," is in the nominative case, is 
to assert nothing more than that this noun denotes, not the per- 
son, but its own self ! ! 

If, however, the real person is the subject of the verb, Mr. 



154 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

Murray recovers from insanity ; and Mr. Hubbard is struck 
blind ! Mr. Hubbard says that the nominative case is the 
SUBJECT of the verb : and if the real person, or the real thing, 
is the subject of the verb, then, indeed, it follows that case be- 
longs not to nouns, and pronouns, but to men, women, and 
children ! ! Thus, we see that cases have been shaken off of 
nouns, and fixed upon those persons, things, and animals, that 
the nouns represent ! ! According to Mr. Hubbard, the verb may 
be in America, and its nominative case in England ! ! 

Let us now return to Mr. Murray. This author says, that, 

" The verb agrees with its nominative case in number and 
person.' 5 

This rule favours the doctrine of Mr. Hubbard. Have we 
said it ? But, hold — we cannot now say what it favours. Let us 
first examine. Does Mr. Murray mean that the verb agrees with 
the noun itself, or with the subject denoted by the noun % We 
think that he intends to say that the verb agrees with the noun 
itself. The noun itself is in the nominative case ; but the subject 
of the verb is the real person, the real thing, the real animal, 
denoted by the nominative case. 

How does Mr. Comly define case I 

" case." 

" Case is a c&nge, or difference in the termination or situation 
of a noun or pronoun." 

"Nouns and pronouns have three cases 5 the nominative, the 
possessive, and the objective." 

" The nominative case is simply the name of a thing, or the 
state of a noun or pronoun when it denotes the subject of a verb ; 
as, / walk." 

In this definition there are two principal things ; and no one 
can say upon which the author means to rest his definition of this 
case. First—" the nominative case is simply the name of a 
thing !" Secondly— The nominative case is the state of a 
noun or pronoun," when the noun, or the pronoun is the subject 
of a verb ! ! 

The first reflection which we shall make upon this definition of 
the " nominative case," is that, the author's definition of case, in 
general, destroys it. The author in his definition of case, says 
that, case is a change, a difference — -yet, in his definition of the 
nominative case, he excludes every change, and every difference ! 
For he declares the nominative case to be " simply the name of a 
fhing." Now, one would think that as case itself consists in 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. l55 

than™, and differences, of termination, and that as there are 
different cases, the nominative case ought to comprise someone, o. 
more of these changes. But, so far from this, we are informed, 
that the nominative case is the mere, simple, naked, name . 

SECOND BRANCH OP HIS DEFINITION. 

« Or, the state of a noun or pronoun when it is the subject of 
a verb." 

When what is the subject of the verb ? The noun or pronoun ' 
What work this is ! ! First, case itself is a change-tten the 
nominative case is neither one item more, nor less than the bare 
name— and, after this, the nominative case is the state- but, wua, 
state? a very peculiar state, indeed-yes the state of a noun 
when it is made the subject of a verb. Does not this particular 
state, then, make the nominative case something more than a 
naked name? Besides the name, the nominative includes this 
state ! ! 

« The nominative case is simply the name of a thing, or the 
state of a noun, or pronoun, when it is the subject of a verb. 
J John i^omly. 

Mr. Comly introduces the word, subject very often, indeed— 
but has he even attempted to show the pupil any kind of distinctive 
mark by which a subject may be known 1 Will this author or 
his friends, pretend that this point has the character of an .axiom i 
Or, will they contend that children distinguish subjects, from 
objects by a kind of instinct 1 

Let ns grant that the subject is the central point of conversa- 
tion, the thing to which the attention of the speaker, or writer, is 
principally turned ; that the object is a thing which is taken up 
with a view to help out with the account, history or narrative of 
the subject ; as, the man was found ten days ago at bredencft. 

Now, we ask who, or what is the subject in the above instance j 
[ S it the word, man * Or, is it the real man, the man himself? 
We are not speaking in the above instance of the noun, wan, but 
of the individual himself. The person, then, becomes the subject, 
and not his name ! But the word itself may become the subject ; 
as, the word, man, has three letters. 

In this instance the noun itself is truly the subject. Yet not 
the subject of the verb— but the subject of attention, the subject 
of thought. We have yet to learn that the mere mechanics con- 
nection of a noun with a verb, renders the noun, a subject ot the 
verb ! What renders a thing a subject ? Is it not the degree ot 
attention which is bestowed upon it? Does the verb set about 



158 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

thinking, and reflecting, upon the noun to which it may be joined? 
And when a verb is connected with two nouns, does it bestow so 
much thought upon one noun as to render it its subject, and so 
little upon the other as to degrade it to a mere object ? 

If so, the difference between a verb's subject, and its object, is 
easily made out ! That noun is the subject of the verb, upon 
which the verb bestows the highest degree of reflection, or atten- 
tion. That noun is the object of the verb, upon which the verb 
bestows a degree of attention less than that which it pays to the 
subject ! ! 

" The nominative case is simply the name of a thing, or the 
state of a noun or pronoun when it is the subject of a verb." 

John Comly. 

We would here ask, what state can be pointed out which at all 
times, may be the state of the subject ? What constitutes this 
state ? Is it the local condition of the noun, or pronoun ? Cer- 
tainly not I 

" The nominative case simply expresses the name of a thing, or 
the subject of a verb." Murray. 

This is much encumbered — the phraseology is ambiguous, and 
the facts upon which it rests, are concealed even from the phil- 
osopher. " The subject of a verb" is introduced as though the 
pupil is familiarly acquainted with the difference between a sub- 
ject, and an object. " The nominative case ( expresses' the sub- 
ject of a verb-" 

Ah ! But what, asks the pupil in his own mind, is the subject 
of a verb ? Here is the rufr ! ! If D. says to B. Ci An apple tree 
is a tree which bears apples," how will B. know from this, what 
an apple tree is, unless he is also instructed what an apple is ? 
Yes, replies B. — You tell me that an apple tree is a tree which 
bears apples ! But, as I do not know what an apple is, your tell- 
ing is to me no instruction ! The nominative case expresses the 
subject of the verb — but what the subject is, will be as difficult 
for the pupil to find out, as it would be to find what the nomina- 
tive case is without any aid from Mr. Murray's Grammar ! Has 
Mr. M. already defined the subject ? — he has informed the pupil 
that the nominative case expresses the subject, which gives the 
pupil the liberty of inferring that, the subject is not the nomina- 
tive case, but something denoted by this case. But in this, Mr. 
Murray's simplifiers contradict him — for they say that, the nomi- 
native case is the subject itself! ! 

Let us now repeat the definition, and try it in practice : 

u The nominative case simply expresses the name of a thing, or 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 157 

the subject of a verb ;' 5 as, Jam, thou wast punished by thy 
teacher. 

This is not the example by which Mr. Murray illustrates his 
definition-^-yet the word, Jane, is in the nominative case — hence, 
if his definition is correct, this example is as happy an illustration 
of his definition as the instance chosen by himself. 

" Jane 9 thou wast punished by thy teacher. 55 

Jane, in this instance, is parsed by Mr. Murray 5 s own Grammar, 
as a nonn in the nominative case independent of the verb ! Ob- 
serve, it is independent of the verb. Hence this noun cannot be 
in the nominative case upon the principle contained in the second 
clause of Mr. Murray 5 s definition of the nominative case — 

" Or it expresses the subject of the verb." 

As this noun has no verb, how can it be the subject of a verb 1 
How, then, can it be in the nominative case ? If this noun is in 
the nominative by any thing which may be found in Mr. Murray 5 s 
definition of this case, it is by the authority derived from the 
first clause in it : — 

" The nominative case simply expresses the name of a thing. 55 

But the noun, Jane, expresses more than this — it signifies the 
object acted upon ! Yes, this noun which is parsed in the nomi- 
native case even without being described in the definition of this 
case, most happily illustrates the definition which Mr. Murray has 
given of the objective case ! The objective case, says Mr. Murray, 
" expresses the object of an action, or of a relation ;" as, Jane, 
thou wast punished by thy teacher ! 

If we here ask, who was punished — who was acted upon, what 
must the answer be % Surely, Jane was acted upon. Let us 
change the order of the sentence — (but not the facts ; we shall 
retain the same facts without the least addition — ) 

" The teacher punished Jane." 

Here, the noun, Jane, is. parsed in the objective case — Why? 
Because it expresses the object acted upon. Yet in the first 
order of this sentence, the same word, denoting the same object, 
is parsed in the nominative case. Jane, thou wast punished by 
the teacher ! ! 

The nominative case expresses simply the name of a thing, or 
the subject of " the verb; 55 as, John, dost thou know that / am 
very sick ! 

The reader has probably asked why this exclamation point ? 
We answer that we feel a high degree of surprise at the fact, that 

14 



]58 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

John, thou, and 2, are all excluded from the very case into which 
the British Grammarians intend to put them. 

Let us now present the definition of a subject as given by the 
British Grammarians : 

" The subject is the thing principally spoken of." — Murray. 

We must ask the reader to keep the two following definitions 
together in his mind : 

1. " The nominative case is the subject." 

2. " The subject is the thing principally spoken of" 

" John thou wast punished by thy teacher." 

The word, John, is a proper noun 5 second person, singular num- 
ber, and in the nominative case. 

But is John spoken of? John is of the second person ; and 
the second person, it will be admitted, is the person spoken to ! 
In what way, we ask, is it to be shown that John is in the nomina- 
tive case ? Let the British Grammarians answer — let them speak 
through Mr. Murray — 

The nominative case is the subject ! And the subject is the 
thing principally spoken of ! 

But John happens to be the thing spoken to! How, then, we 
beg to be informed, can any authority be found for casting this 
noun into the nominative case ? 

Let us now take the word, thou. 

" John, thou wast punished by thy teacher. 

Thou is a pronoun, second person, singular, and in the nomina- 
tive — but stay ! How can the second person be the subject, when 
the second person is the person spoken to, and the subject the 
person spoken of? And, as the second person cannot be the sub- 
ject, how, yes, how can a pronoun of the second person be put 
into the nominative case ! ! ? The British Grammarians have shut 
the door against thou, and against every other word of the second 
person, yea, and of the first person also ! I No, not even the 
ghost of a word which is either of the second, or first person, can 
enter their nominative case ! ! They have shut the door, and 
bolted it with the following bar : 

" The subject is the thing spoken of."* And, " The nominative 
case is the subject I" 

Having, with these definitions, shut, and barred, the door 
against these thousands of words, may they not now as well tie 
up the knocker, and say we are sick, we are dead ! 



b 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 159 

ic Shut, shut the door, good John, tie up the knocker: say / 
am sick, / am dead." 

Indeed their own Pope, in this sentence, does shut their door, 
and tie up their knocker too, for out of the ten nouns which are 
either expressed, or understood, three only can be parsed ! 

Rendered plenary. — Shut thou the door, shut thou the door, 
good John, tie tkou up the knocker — say thou 1 am sick, / am 
dead. 

Now, thou, thou, John, thou, thou, I, and I, are excluded from 
the nominative case, unless indeed it can be shown that these 
words are of the third person ! ! But what is the third person ? 
" The third person is the thing spoken of. )9 

The third person, then, and the subject, are the same thing — 
no word can be parsed in the nominative case unless it is of the 
third person ! ! 

Let us hear Mr. Ingersoll. Mr. Ingersoll is one among the 
many who have been employed for years in the all important busi- 
ness of mending Mr. Murray. Mark, gentle reader, the manner 
in which Mr. Ingersoll proceeds to help Mr. Murray out of the 
above dilemma : 

" At present," says Mr. Ingersoll, u I will explain to you, only 
the nominative case : the others will be explained hereafter : ,? in 
eternity ! 

" A noun which denotes an animal, or thing that does an action, 
is in the nominative case ; as, Jane, thou wast punished by thy 
teacher ! ?* 

* Some few years since, we published a small work in which we 
claimed that part of Mr. Ingersoll's Grammar, which we thought, belonged 
of right, to us. In this little work, we made some reflections upon Mr. 
Ingersoll's definition of the nominative case. Since that period we find 
that he has made another attempt at denning the nominative case. 

It is as follows : — " The nominative case, then, denotes the person or 
thing, of which some affirmation is made." 

Now this definition includes no nouns except those which happen to 
be in mere affirmative sentences ; as, John is writing letters. 

The moment we change the diction of the sentence — " Is John writ- 
ing letters ?" Mr. Ingersoll's definition ceases to apply ! Nor will his 
definition apply in even one half of the instances where the noun is in the 
nominative ; as, If he is a good boy, &c. 

Now, here is no affirmation. 

N. B. — We have quoted the above definition from memory — but we have 
the exact sense, if not the exact words. 



160 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

The word, teacher, is a noun, and denotes an animal that does 
an action ; and, consequently, it must be in the nominative case ! 
Strange, indeed, that men should thus trifle with themselves, and 
impose upon the tender child ! Let us parse the word, teacher, 
as presented in the above illustration of Mr. Ingersoll's definition 
of the nominative case • " Jane, thou wast punished by thy 
teacher." 

Teacher, is a common noun, third person, singular, and in the 
objective case after by ! ! In the objective 1? What then be- 
comes of Mr. Ingersoll 1 He has gone to the place to which we 
will now send Mr. Kirkham. Mr. Kirkham ! Who is he ! Let 
him describe himself! Hear, hear — " The nominative case is 
the actor or subject of the verb ;" as, Jane, thou wast punished 
by thy teacher ! 

Now, teacher-, is a noun in the objective case — and, although 
Jane is a noun in the nominative case, yet, it is independent of 
the verb ! ! We find, then, that, although the nominative case 
must be the subject of the verb, words are put into the nomina- 
tive case, which have no verb at all ! And we find, also, that, 
although the nominative case is the actor, yet the actor in this 
instance, is not the nominative case, but the objective ! 

Let each man speak for himself. Mr. Kirkham, upon the sub- 
ject of his book, remarks — u It has been my object, by clear and 
familiar illustrations to disperse those clouds of obscurity, 
that are so often cast around the young student's bewildered 
imagination, and to smooth his way by removing those obstacles 
that generally retard his progress ! !" 

Let teachers examine before they encourage — let them know, 
before they adopt. Let them throw off all disguise — let them 
despise the principle of recommending books upon the ground of 
friendship, of local ties, of pity, &c. Teachers stand at the 
head of the nation — let them honour their calling, and make 
our republic sure. 

Shall we now hear Mr. Greenleaf's case? 

" The nominative case is the actor, or subject of the verb ; as, 
Jane, thou wast punished by thy teacher, John, the apples were 
eaten by me ! ! 

The nouns, Jane, and John, are independent of the verbs ! 
Hence they cannot be in the nominative case upon the ground 
that they are the subjects of the verbs ! ! 

The pronoun, me, and the noun, teacher, denote the actors — yet 
these words are in the objective case after by ! ! It will be 
sufficient to add that Mr. Greenleaf, is one of Mr. Murray's 
menders ! 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 161 

CardelPs matter and thought Grammar, p. 54 : 

" POSITION OR CASE." 

" Nouns stand in different relations to other words ; as, Henry 
conquered Richard ; Bichard conquered Henry." 

The compiler begins by saying that « nouns stand in different 
relations to other words." He then gives two examples in illus- 
tration ; and upon these two examples, he comments in the fol- 
lowing manner : 

" The first noun denotes the agent or actor ) and the second 
the object whom the action affects !" 

But, pray does this remark explain the mechanical relations 
which these nouns bear to the verb, conquered ? The compiler's 
remark is not to the point in any respect whatever ! Does this 
compiler fancy that in telling what the noun, Henry, denotes, he 
explains its constructive relation to the verb, conquered 1 Henry 
does certainly denote the actor — but what of all this ! The fact 
that a noun denotes the actor, does not settle its relation to the 
verb ! For, if we say, " Richard was conquered by Henry," the 
relation of the noun, Henry, to the verb, is entirely changed ; 
yet Henry is still the actor ! 

1. " Henry conquered Richard." 

2. " Richard was conquered by Henry !" 

So much for the compiler's attempt to explain the relations of 
nouns to verbs, by telling what they denote ! 

The compiler proceeds : 

" The nominative case is the performer of an action ;" as, 
" Richard was conquered by Henry I" 

Henry, is a proper noun, third person, singular, and in the ob- 
jective case, after by ! Yet, Mr. Cardell's definition of the 
nominative case, forces this noun from the objective, and places it 
in the nominative ! 

As an illustration of the accuracy of the compiler's definition 
of the nominative case, he instances the bull, and boat, which, it 
is said, were the foundation of a very interesting law suit. The 
great question was, whether the boat was carried off by the bull, 
or the bull by the boat ! Now, says this grave compiler — 
" either it ran away with him, 
or he ran away with it" 

" Whichever did the action of running away with the other, is 
the agent or nominative word; and the one run away with, is 
the object!" ^ 



162 CLASS book: of criticism. 

Let us now see how the compiler comes out with this dignified 
illustration ! 

1. The boat was carried off by the bull! 

2. The bull was carried off by the boat ! ! 

From this representation the name of the actor, is in the objec- 
tive case-— yes, whether the bull carried off the boat ; or whether 
the boat carried off the bull ! The compiler's illustration proves 
that bulls may be found in books as well as in boats ! 

iC The nominative case is the performer of an action." (Reader 
keep this in mind.) 

" Whichever did the action, is the agent, or nominative word, 
and the one run away with, is the object suffering by the action. 5 ' 
(Header, bear this in mind too.) 

Now, says Mr. Cardell, all verbs express action. The object, 
therefore, in this bull, and boat affair, is in fact the nominative — 
the nominative case is the performer ! The object is the performer 
of that action which is denoted by the verb, suffers ! Hence, the 
very object, be it either bull, or boat, is in the nominative ! 

That bulls should run away with boats, and boats with bulls, is 
all reasonable enough. But that Mr. Cardell should so far run 
away with himself, as to run off with J. Home Tooke, is neither 
reasonable, nor honest ! ! 

The learned compiler says, that whichever performs the action, 
is the nominative. Hence, where two, or more persons are*named, 
and it is uncertain which performed the action specified, it is im- 
possible to ascertain the nominative word ; as, <• either John, 
James, or Stephen, went to church." 

Now, whichever went, " is the performer of the action, there- 
fore, the nominative !" But which did perform this action ? 
This point cannot be decided — hence, by Mr. Cardell's Grammar, 
neither of these can be parsed ! I 

Again. — " Neither John, James, nor Stephen, went to church." 

Here there is no action performed — hence, there is no per- 
former — and, consequently, there is no nominative case to the 
verb, went !" 

Further.—" The paper is extinct. Nothing came into the 
room." 

Now, the noun, paper, is in the nominative case— but does this 
noun denote the actor, or performer 1 There is nothing to act — 
there is no agent in being ! 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 163 

"Nothing came into the room." 

Nothing is the performer ! 

Who, it may be asked, is this Mr. Cardell ? He is the man 
that defines gender to be a difference! He is the compiler of a 
book made up of antiquated errors, obsolete deformities, and of 
the monumental wreck of other men's plans, and schemes. He 
is the man that presents this book as a mass of original miraculous 
truth. He is the deeply skilled Grammarian who has given the 
preceding definition of the nominative case — and he is the author 
of the following sentence which is given in commendation of that 
definition : 

" It will be found a very useful practice in schools, for pupils 
to adduce examples for themselves, in addition to those which 
their lessons may contain." 

Can it be that it would be useful for pupils to give examples 
adapted to Mr. CardelPs definition of the nominative case ? Yet 
the sentence in question, has a direct allusion to that definition. 
Yes, the examples adduced, are to be tried by his inconsistent at- 
tempt at a definition of the nominative case ! We fancy that he 
would recommend them to draw their examples from bulls, and 
boats ! "This (continues he) will not only show their knowledge 
of the subject, but by exercising their inventive faculties, will 
increase their interest for ulterior progress." 

What will exercise their inventive faculties ? Why, to adduce 
examples of the nominative case — but by what rule? By this 

" The nominative case denotes the performer of an action j as, 
the boat was carried off by the bull ! !" 

66 Will increase their interest for ulterior progress." 

What will increase their interest ? Why, to find such a consis- 
tency between Mr. CardelPs definition of the nominative case, and 
the examples adduced ! 

We should take our leave for the present, of Mr. Cardell, was 
it not that he has severely impunged all the literary men who 
preceded himself upon this science. And, indeed, had Mr. Car- 
dell corrected, even one of the ten thousand errors which deform 
theold theory of English Grammar, we should have passed him 
by m silence, and pity. But as he has lampooned the learned 
men of all nations, without correcting, or finding, even one of 
their numerous errors, we feel bound to speak of him in such 
terms as will render him a better scholar, and a better man ! 

In the Introduction, we have attempted to show that Mr. Car- 



184 class book: of criticism. 

dell, is altogether incapable of writing our language with pro« 
priety, , And believing ourselves successful in that attempt, we 
do not make any additional strictures upon his language for the 
reader's satisfaction but for Mr. Cardell's instruction. We shall 
now repeat the sentence which we quoted above ; and we ask 
attention to the italic words : 

" It will be found a very useful practice, in schools, for pnpils 
to adduce examples for themselves, in addition to those which 
their lessons may contain" 

The word, adduce, signifies to add — hence, the sentence in 
sense, is as follows 

It will be found a very useful practice in schools for pupils to 
add examples for themselves in addition to those which their 
lessons may contain. (To add in addition !) 

" In schools ," is redundant ; and, as the sentence should end 
at themselves, the assemblage of words, " in addition to those 
which their lessons may contain" is useless. 

It will be found a useful practice for pupils to adduce examples 
for themselves. 

The sentence in its original form, comprises 26 words. But in 
its improved form, it contains only 13, which shows a redundancy 
of 13 words. 

To this sentence the compiler subjoins the following : 

" This will not only show their knowledge of the subject, but by 
exercising their inventive faculties, will increase their interest for 
ulterior progress . ? ' 

" Interest for," is not English! We say interest in, but desire 
for. 

In idea, however, both sentences are a unit — hence it should be 
expressed in one sentence. 

A substitute for both. 

That the pupil may show his own knowledge of this subject, 
and be somewhat instrumental in adding to it, he should adduce 
instances of the nominative case, for himself. (59 words.) 

Before we close this chapter, we deem it somewhat important 
to show in what way Peter Bullions, and Groold Brown, have 
mended Murray upon the subject of the cases. 

To do these compilers justice, it is necessary to give the reader 
their respective definitions of case itself. 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 165 

" II. Of the Case of Nouns." 

Case is the state, or condition, of a noun with respect to other 
words in a sentence ! ! — P. Bullions. 

Let us suppose that A., of Boston, attempts, in a letter, to 
describe his state, or condition, to his friend in Philadelphia. His 
friend receives his letter, dated, Boston, June 2, 1844. 

The letter, which is long, is read with great care by his Phila- 
delphia friends. But all they can glean from it, which relates to 
A.'s condition, is the following sentence : 

" The condition of your friend A., is the state of a man with 
respect to other persons in Boston /" 

The case of a noun is its condition with respect to the other 
words in a sentence ! 

This definition affords about as much light as a piece of chalk 
in a dark room. 

Even if the child could ascertain what the condition of a noun 
is with respect to the other words in the sentence, he would be 
wonderfully enlightened upon the subject of case ! 

" Case is the state, or condition, of a noun with respect to the 
other words in a sentence." . 

It seems, then, that a noun is in a particular case with respect 
to atl the other words in the sentence ! To the other words in a 
sentence. 

u Truth and candour possess a powerful charm" (Bullions, 
page 73.) 

Truth is a noun in the nominative case with respect to and, to 
candour, to possess, to a, to powerful, and to charm I 

Under page 73, Mr. Bullions parses this sentence. In his so- 
lution we find the noun, truth, disposed of in the following way : 
" Truth," " A noun, neuter, singular, the nominative" 
That is, t? v uth is the nominative to and, to candour, to possess, 
to a, to powerful, and to charm I If this is not so what does this 
definition of case mean ? 

" Case is the state, or condition, of a noun with respect to the 
other words in a sentence." 

Nouns have three cases, viz. — the nominative, possessive, and 
objective. 

1. " The nominative case expresses that of which something is 
said or declared ;" as, John, thou wast punished by thy teacher. 



166 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

Nothing is here said of John— hence his name is not in the 
nominative case by virtue of this definition of the nominative. 
John is a proper noun, of the second person— and, as the second 
person is not spoken of, but to, how can John, or thou, be in 
the nominative ! ? 

The nominative case expresses that of which something is said, 
or declared. 

Nothing is said of John— nothmg is said of thou ! Yet, strange 
as it may, indeed as it must, seem, these two words are the only 
ones which are parsed in the nominative case ' 



I ! ! 



Teacher, is of the third person— and, as the third person is the 
one of whom something is said, teacher which is in the objective 
case, and governed by by, is the only word which can be parsed 
in the nominative, by virtue of Mr. Bullion's definition of this 
case ! 

^ Mr. Bullions himself says the teacher is the only person men- 
tioned in the sentence of whom any thing is said. He himself 
parses John, and thou, of the second person— by this he declares 
that nothing is said of them. He parses teacher, of the third 
person— by this he declares that something is said of the teacher. 
(Book II., p. xi.) J 

Case, says Mr. Bullions, is "state, or condition." The nomi- 
native case of a noun, then, is the nominative condition of it ! 

And, as the nominative case expresses that thing of which 
something is said, it follows that the thing of which something is 
said, is expressed, not by the noun, but by the nominative con- 
dihonoi the noun ! Hence, in the following sentence the thing 
of which we speak, is not expressed, denoted, by the word, book, 
but by the nominative condition of the word, book ! 
The book is new. 

This certainly does improve Murray ! 

" The nominative case expresses that of which something is 
said, or declared f as, the rock was smitten by Moses. 

Is it not here declared of Moses, that he smote the rock f * 
Is not this proper noun, which Mr. Bullions parses in the objec- 
tive case, actually in the nominative case ! ? 

; Is it not as clearly said of Moses that he smote the rock, as 
it is of the rock, that it was smitten ? 

m Can we be told that the nouns in the following instances, in 
italic characters, denote beings of which nothing is said ? If no- 
tnmg is said of them, how can their names be of the third per- 
son : ? (The third person is spoken of.) 



CLASS BOOK OP CRITICISM. 



161 



1. "The world is sustained by God." 

2. " His son was taught by Jacob." 

3. The fire was extinguished by John. 

4. The horse was stolen by Joseph. 

Let us now hear what Mr. Goold Brown says of the nominative 
case. 

« The nominative case is that form, or state of a noun or a 
pronoun, which denotes the subject of a verb ;" as, John, go to 
school. 

Appended to Mr. Brown's Grammar, is a KEY which we have 
perused with great care to enable us to ascertain what is meant 
by this definition. But, to us, this definition is still under lock 
and key ! the key which he furnishes, does not suit the lock, 
which prevents us from opening this mysterious verbal box ! 

"The nominative case is that/om, or state." 

Are the words, form, and state, as here used, synonymous? Do 
both words, as here used, mean the tame thing ? 

From the definition which Mr. Brown gives of case itself, we 
infer that he intends to use form, and state, as meaning the same 
thing. 

" CASE. 55 

" Cases are modifications that distinguish the relations of nouns 
and pronouns to other words.' 3 — Goold Brown. 

As state is not used in this definition, we conclude that it is 
used in the other, merely to improve the euphony of the sentence ! 

"Cases are modifications which distinguish the relations of 
nouns and pronouns to other words." 

What are the relations which nouns, and pronouns bear to 
other words, which the case modifications "distinguish?" If 
case, in general, is a modification which expresses the different re- 
lotions that nouns and pronouns bear to other words, the nomina- 
tive case must express one, or more, of these relations. But does 
Mr. Brown, even mention the word, relation, in his definition of 
the nominative case 1 ? Does he even use a word in this defini- 
nition, which conveys the least allusion to a relation of nouns, 
and pronouns, to other words ? 

« The nominative case is the form, or state, of a noun which 
denotes the subject of a verb." 

Dops the word, subject, convey any allusion to a relation of one 
word with another ! ? The word, subject, alludes to the object, or 
thin£ on which the mind acts. 



168 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

" Subject, — that on which some mental or material operation is 
performed." — Johnson. 

What says Murray. " The subject is the thing principally 
spoken of." 

Why has not Mr. Brown told what this relation is of which he 
speaks in his definition of case ? Simply, because he does not 
know what it is I ! 

If cases are modifications of nouns, and pronouns, why does not 
Mr. Brown tell us what modifications constitute the nominative 
case ! ? Simply, because there is no modification which constitutes 
this case ! 

What is it which denotes the subject of the verb ? The defi- 
nition of the nominative case, as given by Mr. Brown, does not 
answer this question : 

" The nominative case is the form, or state, of a noun or pro- 
noun, which denotes the subject of a verb." 

Does which represent form, or state, or noun, or pronoun ? No 
one can decide from the sentence ! 

We will now give some attention to an illustration of this defi- 
nition of the nominative case. 

Boys, you were punished by the teacher. 

Has the word, boys, a form which enables it to denote the sub- 
ject ? Has the word, boys, a state which enables it to denote the 
subject ? 

" The nominative case is the form, or state, of a noun or pro- 
noun, which denotes the subject of a verb ; as, Boys, you were 
punished by the teacher." 

How can the word, boys, denote the subject of a verb, when it 
is absolutely independent of all verbs ? 

Again — as the subject is the thing principally spoken of, how 
can boys be parsed in the nominative case ? This noun does not 
denote what is spoken of, but what is spoken to. Boys is a noun 
of the second person ! 

You is a pronoun— but has no form which is peculiar to it when 
it denotes the subject — you has the same form in the objective, 
which it has in the nominative : you were punished. Here you is 
nominative. " Of you." Here you is objective. 

With respect to state, we have already demonstrated that it is 
a mere bubble ! 

Does you denote the subject ! ? How, then, can you be of the 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 169 

second person ? The subject is the object spoken of. You denotes 
the person spoken to ! How, therefore, can you be in the nomi- 
native case by virtue of the definition which follows : 

66 The nominative case is the form, or state, of a noun or pro- 
noun, which denotes the subject of a verb." — Goold Brown's 
"finished labours t !" 

If the nominative case denotes the subject, and the subject is 
the thing spoken of, how can any word of the first, or the second 
person, be in the nominative case ! % 

1. " / was at school in London. 55 

2. "We will call on them soon." 

3. [" / who am now reading, understand this matter !" 

If I, we, and who, are not of the third person, they can not be 
subjects — and, if not subjects, they are not in the nominative case ! 

The third person, and the subject are defined in the same way ! 
The third person is the thing spoken of ; and a subject is the 
thing spoken of. But these pronouns, I, we, who, denote the 
speakers — hence, they are of the first person — and, consequently, - 
as they can not denote subjects, they can not be in the nominative 
case ! 

" John is a boy of truth. 5 ' 

John is a name in the name case to is ! Or — 

John is a noun in the noun case to is ! Or — 

John is a sign in the sign case to is ! Or — 

John is a nominative, in the nominative case to is ! 

As sign, name, noun, and nominative, mean the same thing, 
either of these methods of parsing, is synonymous with the fol- 
lowing : 

John is a noun, in the nominative case to is. 

Let us now inquire what is meant by the phrase, " nominative 
case to is Z 55 

John is in the nominative case to is ! 

When we say, John went to the ctoor, we understand the im- 
port of to. But when we say that the word, John, is in the nomi- 
native case to "is," we speak of something of which we know 
nothing ! 

Before we pursue this point farther, it may be well to devote a 
few minutes to the words, " in the nominative case after is. 55 

" John is a boy of truth. 55 

Boy is a noun, in the nominative case after is. 

Is the word, after, employed to express any nominative relation 
which the word, boy, bears to is $ Or, is after used to denote ths 

15 



170 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

'position of boy in reference to is ? That boy comes after is, is 
obvious. But if after is employed merely to express the place of 
boy in reference to is, why not use before to express the place of 
John in reference to is ! ? 

u John is a boy of truth." 

John is a noun in the nominative case before is. 

j&oy is a noun in the nominative case after is 

But, no, John is in the nominative case to is — and boy, in th^ 
nominative case after is ! Reconcile this method with good sense 
if you can ! 

" Is it they." 

It, is a pronoun, in the nominative case to is. 

They, is a pronoun, in the nominative case after is / / 

When it is said that they is in the nominative case, is it not 
meant that it is in the nominative case in relation to some verb ? 
Or is this pronoun in the nominative case independent of all 
verbs ! 1 The old school Grammarians do not pretend that they is 
in the nominative case independent of the verb. In relation, then, 
to what verb is they in the nominative case % Is this pronoun in 
the nominative case to is ! ? Is they, is not English. Nor is, 
they is, English. What ! Can a pronoun be in the nominative 
case to a verb, when at the same time the putting of the pronoun 
with the verb, produces a gross infraction of the rules of 

[" It is] (they.") 

1. What is the meaning of, in the nominative case to is ? 

2. What is the meaning of, in the nominative case after is ? 

" John is a boy of truth." 

Is the word, John, nominative in relation to is ? Surely not — 
the word, John, is nominative in relation to the person himself. 
John, is the name of the real person ! This, word, then, is in the 
nominative case in relation to the person — -and not in relation to 
the verb, is ! Is is the subject ! ? No, no ! 

If the nominative case is the mere name of the subject, and if 
John is the subject, is not the word, the name, the sign John, 
nominative in relation to John himself 1 Preposterous! John 
bear a name, a noun, a nominative, relation to is ! Then, of 
course John is the name of is ! ! 

" John is a boy of truth. 5 ' 

John> a noun, in the nominative case to John himself. 

If the nominative case is the name of the subject, this is the 
only rational parsing whlqh can be given, W§ 4^ny that % noun. 



GLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 171 

bears a nominative relation to the verb. The noun bears a nomi- 
native relation to the subject, to the object, to the thing of which 
it is the name, and to nothing else ! 

The following is from Hart's English Grammar, p. 46, and 
proves clearly that, the pupil has much difficulty in learning the 

cases. 

" 166. It is of great importance that the pupil should learn as 
early as possible, to distinguish between the Nominative and Ob- 
jective cases. The Possessive may be recognised at once by its 
form. But to distinguish readily the other two, is one of the 
greatest stumbling-blocks to beginners." 

" No mode should be left untried, which the ingenuity of the 
teacher can invent, of directing the attention of the learner to the 
true relation of the noun, as being the subject, or the object of 
the verb." 

[The Substitute, p. 146.1 



CHAPTER XIV.—Of the Possessive Case, 

We intend to dispose of this case in a very summary way. 

The termination which is called the possessive case, is a mere 
adjective affix, and, as such, it converts the noun to which it is 
affixed into an adjective ; as, 

1. " He brought Jane's book, and her paper." 

2. " G-oold Brown's definitions are unsound." 

3. " Peter Bullion's Latin Grammar." 

As at, ic, iv, ous, ine, &c, are affixes which translate nouns in- 
to adjectives, so are the affixes which are called the possessive 
case, suffixes that convert nouns into adjectives. 

NOUNS. ADJECTIVES. 

1. Mode modal, ah 

2. Jane Jane's. ? s. 

3. Virtue virtuous, ous. 

4. Philosophy philosophic, ic. 

The pronouns which are supplemental to the nouns in the pos- 
sessive case, are called adjectives, or adjective pronouns : 
" John saw her with his book." 
To his, the old theory applies the word, adjective. 
But is his, any thing more or less than John's. 
John saw her with John's book. 



172 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

If his, the true representative of John's, can be called an ad- 
jective, can not John's be styled an adjective also ? 

It is said that there are four sorts of adjective pronouns, viz., 
the possessive, distributive, demonstrative, and indefinite. The 
possessive adjective pronouns are, my, thy, his, her, our, your, 
their, its, own, (Bullions's Grammar, p. 26.) 

But what is the possessive case ? 
Mr. Bullions says, that 

" The possessive case denotes that to which something belongs 7 

as," 

1. The fan of the lady ! 

2. The hat of John ! 

The nouns, lady, and John, are in the possessive case, govern- 
ed by the preposition, of ! 

" Truth and candour possess a powerful charm." 

Truth, a common noun, third person, singular, in the possessive 

case ! 

Candour, a noun, of the third person, singular, in the possessive 

case! 

Under the thirty-ninth page of Bullions^ English Grammar, 
we find the above sentence. 

Under she same page we find truth, and candour, parsed in the 
nominative case. But, if the possessive case is what Mr. Bullions 
defines it to be, who can not see that truth, and candour, demand 
that we put truth, and candour, into the possessive case ! 1 

The possessive case, says Mr. Bullions, denotes that to which 
something belongs. 

" Truth, and candour, possess powerful charms." 

Does not a powerful charm belong to truth, and candour ? Are 
not truth, and candour, then, in the possessive case ! ? 

Every noun as well as every pronoun in italic characters, in 
the following sentences, is in the possessive case* 

1. /have a book. 

2. « This is the knife of Samuel" 

3. " A portrait of the king is here." 

4. He is a man of much property. 

5. Have you boy's hats for sale ? 

As the boys are not spoken of as possessing hats, the word, hoys, 
does not denote any thing to which something belongs. But, as 
the persons, called you^ are spoken to as having hats, you y is in 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM* 173 

the possessive case . What wort, what work, what work ! Oh ! 
these Murray menders ! 

« The possessive case denotes the possessor of something '" 

1. /have a book ; 

2. John is the owner of a book ! 

3. This is the house of Stephen ! 

Under page 41, this same Mr. Kirkham says, 

« Now Jive grains of common sense" will enable any one to com- 
prehend what is meant by case ! ! 

In a work entitled, Book Instructor, designed to TEACH the 
science of English Grammar without a TEACHER, we find the 
following definition of the possessive case : 

" The possessive case denotes the possessor or owner of prop- 
erty ! !" * F 

1. " Bur and has a horse \" 

2. " Davidson owns a house \" 

3. This is the hat of James /'* 

4. This is the book of Sarah ! 

5. / have a pen ! 

6. Thou hast an inkstand ! 

^ We must congratulate Mr. Ells upon his remarkable success in 
his attempt to give a definition of the possessive case ! 

Under page 26, Groold Brown says, 

The possessive case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, 
which denotes the relation of property • as, boy's hats, my hat. 

Let us see with what ease this definition can be applied to the 
following : 

1. John's uncle ! 

2. Nancy's friend ! 

Is the uncle the property of John ? Is the friend the property 
of Nancy 1 

" Henry has boys' hats for sale." 
* Is it to be presumed that these hats which belong to Henry are 
the property of the boys ! ? 

How the definition vanishes before the test ! 

But is this relation of property mentioned in Brown's definition 
of the possessive case, the same relation to which he refers in his 
definition of case itself ? In his definition of case itself, he speaks 
^f a relation of nouns, and prononns, to other words ! But in 
ais definition of the possessive case, he says nothing of this sort 

15* 



174 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

of relation* The relation of nouns, and pronouns, to other words, 
must be very different from the relation of property to its- owner ! 

u CASES." 

" Cases, are modifications that distinguish the relation of nouns 
and pronouns to other words /"— G-oold Brown. 

The possessive case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, 
which denotes the relation of property ; as, " hoy's hat, my hat." 

Now, as the boy is not the property, but the proprietor, would 
not Mr. Brown's definition be much improved by the substitution 
of proprietor for property ? 

The possessive case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, 
which denotes the relation of proprietor to property ; as, John's 
book. 

But we will call the attention of the reader once more, to the 
obvious difference between the two relations of which Mr. Brown 
speaks, and close our reflections upon his wonderful definition of 
the cases. 

The relation of which he speaks in his definition of ease itself, 
is that of nouns, and pronouns, to other words. But the relation 
of which he speaks in his definition of the possessive case, is that 
which exists between the proprietor and his property I The defi- 
nition of case itself, is Mr. Brown's guide — it is his constitutional 
definition, out of which he can not travel without subjecting him- 
self to the charge of inconsistency. Has he founded his definition 
of the possessive case upon the relation of nouns, and pronouns, 
to other words 1 No, no ! He has built his definition, not upon 
the relation of nouns, and pronouns, to other words, but upon the 
relation which a house, and lot, a horse, and wagon, a hat, and 
book, bear to him who happens to be the proprietor of them ! The 
relation of property I 

But the definition is false in theory, and false in practice : 

1. Jane's uncle ! 

2. Sarah's friend ! 

3. Have you boys 7 hats for sale ! ? 

Here you, the nominative, is the possessive ! Are not the hats 
spoken of as the property of you J 

And how is the word, boys', parsed ? In the possessive case. 
But are the hats spoken of as the property of the boys ? Nothing 
like it ! The hats are the property of you ! The hats, then, 
bear the relation of property to the nominative case ! 

Has Mr. Brown founded his definition of the nominative case 
upon the relation of which he speaks in his definition of case itself '? 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 175 

No, no, He has founded his definition, not upon a relation of 
nouns, and pronouns, to other words, but upon the relation which 
the real object, the real things bear, to the mind of the speaker, 
or writer — he founds it upon the subject ! 

Under the first page of the Preface to Mr. Brown's Grammar, 
we find the following which we submit without comment ; 

" To embody, in a convenient form, the true principles of the 
English language, and to express them in a simple and perspicuous 
style, adapted to the capacity of youth, are the objects of the fol- 
lowing work \" 

Let us now hear what Mr. Murray says on the possessive case. 

The possessive case expresses the relation of property or pos- 
session } and has an apostrophe with the letter s following it ; as, 
the scholar's duty, my father's house.— Murray. 

" And has an apostrophe with the letter s following it." 

What has an apostrophe with the letter, s 1 the possessive 
case ! 

" The possessive case expresses the relation of property or pos- 
session i and has an apostrophe with the letter s following it," 

Following what 1 following the possessive case % The pronoun, 
it, stands for possessive case. 

" The possessive case has an apostrophe with the letter, s, fol- 
lowing it; as, the scholar's duty." 

As the apostrophe, and s, are the possessive case, where is the 
propriety of saying that the possessive case is followed by an 
" apostrophe, and s /" 

According to Mr. Murray, the possessive case of scholar, is this 
Vs / Scholar's'^ duty ! 

The scholar's duty. 

Does this expression convey an allusion to the relation of 
property % Is a man's duty his property I ? 

The possessive ease expresses the relation of property or pos- 
session ,* as, the scholar's duty." 

The scholar, then, is the owner, the proprietor, of this duty ! 
We do not believe any such idea is intended by the language used. 

The truth is that scholar is thrown into an adjective form to 
express a distinction which could not be made in any other way 
with as much brevity. 

" Get John's horse." 

John is rendered an adjective to express what horse. But the 



176 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

old school Grammarians say that John is rendered an adjective to 
express that John is the owner, the possessor, of the horse ! This, 
however, is not so. 

1. Call at Mr. Brown's drug store, and get a bottle of Sw aim's 
Panacea, 

Is it here expressed that this Panacea is the property of Swaim ? 
Nothing like it. 

2. " I have one of Roge?*s's knives." 

Is it here expressed that Rogers is the owner of these knives % 

3. " We eat baker's bread altogether." 

Does this mean that the bread which we eat, is the property of 
the baker ? 

4. " Get a copy of Murray 's Grammar." 

Does this mean that Murray is the owner of this book 1 

5. " Lea's pills are a good medicine." 

Does this import that Lea is the owner of these pills, or, does it 
mean that he is the maker, inventor, of them % 

6. " John has boys' hats for sale." 

The hats belong not to the boys, but to John. Yet boys is in 
the case which the old school Grammarians say expresses the 
relation of property, possession ! 

7. " They read all David's psalms," 

Is David here represented as the owner, or as the author, of 
the psalms ? 

8. " Joseph lives with John's friend." 

What ! Is the friend with whom Joseph lives, the property of 
John? 

9. " We followed John's directions." 

Is it here meant that these directions are the property of John, 
or that they come from him 1 

10. "The wind's music was sweet." 

Is it here meant that the wind is the owner, or the author, the 
maker, of the music. 

11. "Earth's productions are numerous." 

Is it here meant that the earth is the proprietor, owner, or the 
giver of these productions ? 

12. " The trunk's branches were small. " 

What is the true idea here ? Is it that the trunk is the mere 
owner of the branches ? Or is it that the trunk is the author, the 
f?iver, of the branches ? Can branches which are engrafted into 
the trunk, be said to be the trunk's branches ? The branches 
which are merely engrafted into the trunk, are not the trunk's 
branches. 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM 177 

Where a child bears the relation of adoption to Mr. Webster, 
can it be said to be Mr. Webster's child. 

" Mr. Webster's child," means a child of which Mr. Webster 
is the father. 

13. " Webster's son." 

Here, Webster's is parsed in the possessive case. This, how- 
ever, is a misnomer ; the true case of the norm is no case. And 
the true relation of Webster to the son, is clearly expressed by 
parent, origin, source. Webster's, then, is a noun in the source 
deflection, the origin form, the parent modification. 

Significant technicals are well calculated to expose error in 
false theories. The word, possessive, is almost the only technical, 
in the old theory, which has any meaning. Hence, in general, it 
requires great care to demonstrate the errors which pervade, and 
deform it. But where there is a technical which is expressive of 
a distinct idea, a very short cross examination will expose the 
work of error, even to the mere child. 

" The possessive case expresses the relatien of property , or pos- 
session." 

1. Murray 's Grammar. 

2. Baker's bread. 

3. Webster's son. 

4. John's friend. 

5. Goodness' sake. 

6. John has boys' hats for sale. 

7. A Hen's eggs. 

8. Farmers' Bank. 

9. Merchants' Bank. 

BECOMMENDATION OF BOOK SECOND. 

" Although I have not examined the Second Book of Mr. 
Brown's Rational System of English Grammar, as thoroughly as 
I have the First, I am satisfied that Mr. Smith's opinion of it is 
just, and am perfectly willing to say that I concur in opinion 
with him, respecting the work. And in imitation of his course, I 
would ask whether we have not styled words which represent cats, 
dogs, and even inanimate objects, personal pronouns long enough 
— whether we have not sufficiently long denominated the speech, 
the diction itself, a mere mode of the verb — whether we have not 
too long paid for teaching our children that there are three cases 
when in truth, and simplicity there is not even one. 

" I would ask also whether the hens possess the eggs, the boys 
possess the hats, the baker the bread, and whether the brewer 



178 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

actually possesses the yeast mentioned in the following sentences 
■ — John carried hens eggs to market — John has boys' hats for 
sale — Brewer's yeast is used in baker's bread ! 

"I would ask, likewise, whether we have not already used the 
word case, in English long enough, whether we have not too long 
parsed the thing for the name of the thing— whether we have not 
too long called words which have no relation to verbs, adverbs — 
and whether we are still to be compelled by the use of the old 
theory to have our children taught that the verb which represents 
a perfectly finished event, is of the Imperfect tense 1 I would ask 
too whether there is any propriety in continuing to learn that a 
verb is a word which signifies being, action, or suffering ; as, John 
ought to return, He resembles her, The timber wants strength and 
solidity, He can go, John has land in Ohio — whether there is any 
propriety in teaching that a noun is the name of any person, place, 
or thing, while the preposition, behind, is as much the name of a 
place as is any other word in the language, and while the adjective 
red, is as much the name of something as is any other word, in 
short, whether there is a propriety in learning a definition of a 
noun which makes all words nouns. GEORGE W. BIDDLE." 



The relations between the things expressed by words in the 
possessive case, and the noun on which this possessive word de- 
pends, are too numerous to be comprehended by even a hundred 
distinctive names. That the relation of property may exist is 
admitted. But this relation has nothing to do with grammar 
— hence Grammars should have nothing to do with it. Gram- 
mar is a science which treats of the relation of words. Meta- 
physics is a science which treats of the relation of things. Let 
the Grammarian, then, abandon metaphysics, and give the relation, 
not of the real horses, real oxen, real men, and real children, but 
of the words which denote these real beings ! 

A remarkable book in the form of an English Grammar, has 
recently appeared under the following imposing title : 

" An improved Grammar of the English Language, on the In- 
ductive system ; by Reverend Bradford Frazee, late principal 
of Washington Female Academy. Washington, Miss." 

Under page 26, we find the following definition of the posses- 
sive case : 

Ci The possessive case denotes ownership ;" as, 
1. Baker's bread is not so cheap as domestic. 
Does not baker's indicate the kind of bread ! Does the word, 
taker's denote ownership ! ! 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 179 

2. Brewer's yeast is better than baker's yeast. 

Do brewer's, and baker's express ownership ?— or do they express 
the kinds of yeast ! 1 

3. He studies Bradford Frazee's Grammar. 

Do we here mean that Bradford Frazee is the owner of this 
book ? Nothing like it. 

4. " John's friend was shot, and burnt, for the crime of dis- 
sertion." 

What does John own ! ! ? Does he possess the annihilated 
friend ! ? 

5. " James saw John's friend." 

Is this friend the property of John ! % If not, where is the 
ownership ! ? 

Under page 25, Mr. Frazee gives the following definition of 
case itself : 

" CASE." 

" Case means the position of the name in the sentence with 
respect to other words." 

But is this principle found in the following definition of the pos- 
sessive case ? 

" The possessive case denotes ow?iership /" 

What a vast difference there is between position, place, and 
ovmership ! ? 

As case signifies place, position, and as the possessive case is in- 
volved in the idea of case, why not define the possessive case by 
a description of its position ! ? 

In the title page, Mr. Frazee styles his work an improved 
Grammar of the English language ! And in his Preface he vir- 
tually adopts the following language— 

" / am the door, by me if any man enter in, he is saved from 
bis grammatical sins— he shall go in and out, and find pasture ! !" 
Yes, if that which has been masticated, chewed, almost to anni- 
hilation, is pasture, he will find pasture enough ! But, if he does 
not meet with a little stubble in going in, and out, we shall conclude 
that he has neither eyes, nor palate! 

[We have examined several English Grammars of more recent 
publication than those on whose definitions of the possessive case 
we have here commented. But, as they contain nothing new, we 
can not consent to make them the subject of additional reflections 
Chandler, Welds, &c, &c, are mere copyists.] 

The substitute, Book II., page 74, and 75. 



CLASS BOOK OP CRITICISM. 



CHAPTER XV.— Of the Objective Case. 

We shall commence this chapter by giving Mr. Murray on the 
Objective case. After having given his definition of this case, 
and made some few comments upon it, we shall examine the defi- 
nitions which they who have been labouring to simplify his 
works, have given of the same case. 

" The objective case expresses the object of an action or of a 
relation ;" as, Jane, thou wast punished by thy teacher, in the 
school house ! 

The word, Jane, is a proper noun, second person, singular — 
and in what case 1 Jane, is in the nominative case ! Who was 
punished? Jane was punished. Was not Jane, then, the object 
acted upon ? Yes, This noun, therefore, must be in the objec- 
tive case. By what rule ? Why by the clearest rule possible — 
the very definition of the objective case ! Can any one say that 
this noun is not in the objective case ! % Surely it is not in the pos- 
sessive — nor is it in the nominative : for it is neither the subject 
of a verb, nor the actor ! Why not the subject of a verb % Be- 
cause it is independent of the verb. "When an address is made, 
the noun is in the nominative case independent " 

The word, thou, is a pronoun, second person, singular, and in 
the nominative case to wast punished. Yet this pronoun expresses 
the object acted upon. Who was punished ? Thou wast punished. 
How, then, can this pronoun be in the nominative case ? " Easily 
enough," says Mr. Ingersoll. " The nominative case is that 
word which denotes the animal, or the thing, which does an 
action ! 55 

Ah! and does the pronoun, thou, denote an animal that does 
an action ? Or does this pronoun denote an animal to which an 
action is done ? 

What is Mr. Ingersoll's definition of the objective case % 
" The objective case, 55 says Mr. Ingersoll, " denotes the object 
of an action ; as, Caroline broke the glass." 

Here, the action is done by Caroline, and to the glass. The 
word, glass, is presented by Mr. Ingersoll as the objective case. 
How is it in the instance before us 1 Thou denotes the person to 
whom the action is done ; and by Mr. Murray, as well as by Mr. 
Ingersoll, is a pronoun in the objective case ! But this pronoun, 
the same word, is in the objective, and in the nominative at the 
same time! Thou, expresses the object of an action ;— hence in 
the objective — thou, is parsed in the nominative ! So it is — and it 
cannot be helped.' 



CLASS BOoK OF CRITICISM. 181 

Let us now repeat the definition : 

The objective case expresses the object of an action, or of a 
relation ;" as Jane, thou wast punished by thy teacher, in the 

SCHOOL HOUSE. 

The word, teacher, is a common noun, third person, singular, 
and in the objective case after by. Yet the word, teacher, denotes 
the very actor himself ! But what is the objective case 7 " The 
objective case expresses the object of an action." How, how, 
then, we beg to be informed, can the noun which expresses, not 
the object, but the very actor himself, be parsed in the objective 
case ? The word, teacher, is Mr. Ingersoll's, Mr. Greenleaf 's, 
Mr. Kirkham's, and Mr. Cardell's, nominative case? the actor ! 
Mr. Murray, however, says, 

" The nominative case simply expresses the name of a thing, or 
the subject of a verb." 

Mr. Murray, and all his sdiplifiers, are grossly absurd. 

If the nominative case is the actor, then, indeed, the nomina- 
tive case, in the example before us, is the objective case ! Nor 
are constructions of this description rare ; our language abounds 
with them. 

" Jane, thou wast punished by thy teacher in tne school house." 

Mr. Murray's definition of the objective case seems not to des- 
cribe the character of the word, teacher. Yet this noun is not 
entirely lost — for the simplijiers, and the cloud dispe?*sers of Mr. 
Murray's Grammar, have caught, most happily caught, this objec- 
tive case in their definition of the nominative ! They intend their 
definition for the nominative case — but, as it seems not to suit 
the nominative, let it not be lost, let it be applied to the objective 
case ! 

We now come to the word, house, which is a common noun, 
third person, singular, and in the objective case, governed by the 
preposition, in. 

House is not the object of an action ; hence, if it is in the ob- 
jective case by virtue of Mr. Murray's definition of this case, it 
comes under the last clause — 

" The object of a relation." 

There is a relation between Jane, and the house ; for Jane, as 
says the sentence, was in the house. 

" Jane, thou wast punished by thy teacher in the school house." 
Or, Jane, thou, in the school house, wast punished by thy teacher. 

The preposition, in, shows the relation which exists between 
the real house, and the real person. And the word, house, is put 

16 



182 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

into the objective case — because of what ? because of this rela- 
tion. Now, was the house nearer to Jane than she was to the 
house ? Surely Jane being as near the house, as the house was 
to her, the noun, Jane, ought also to be put into the objective case 
on account of this curiously objective relation ! Yes — before Mr. 
Murray put the noun, house, into the objective, because of this re- 
lation, he should have found the extent of the principle. The 
thing which partakes of the relation to the higher, or highest de- 
gree, ought to be considered the object of the relation. But, if 
you examine, you will find that the things which are related, ever 
partake of the relation existing between them, in an equal degree ! 
If James is my brother, I am his brother. But, if James could 
be my brother, and I bear no relation to him, Mr. Murray's prin- 
ciple might answer. Yes, if it could be proved that the ear has 
no relation with the head, then, indeed, the head might be con- 
sidered as the object of the relation which it bears to the ear, 
without taking the ear into the account. But, as it is, if we say, 
* c the ear is on the head," it is absurd to view the head as the 
only object of this relation. The ear is as near to the head, as 
the head is to the ear. If, therefore, in parsing the following 
sentence, the word, head, is parsed in the objective on account of 
the relation, we contend that the word, ear, also should be parsed 
in the objective : 

" The ear is on the head." 

Ear, is in the nominative case — but head, is the object of a re 
lation, hence in the objective case ! 

Let us now attend to the instructions of Mr. Comly upon the 
object — 

" The objective case is the state of a noun, or pronoun, when it 
is the object of a verb, or preposition." 

This definition appears well enough, till one tries to understand 
it. But the first attempt which one makes to comprehend its im- 
port, involves it in great obscurity. In the definition before us 
we find this state lugged in again — and to what effect ? It is not 
explanation ; but, on the contrary, it is a point which requires 
much explanation. If Mr. Comly knew what state it is of which 
he speaks so much, why did he not employ Mr. Murray's definite 
article, or some other descriptive word, and point out the kind of 
state he means ? 

" The objective case is a state of the noun or pronoun, when 
it is the object of the transitive verb, participle, or preposition." 

Let us use the only word which Mr. Comly could have em- 
ployed for the description of this state : 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 183 

The objective case is the objective state of a noun, or pronoun 
when it is the object of a transitive verb, participle, or preposition. 
More than this Mr. Comly does nut mean. But even this he can- 
not sustain. If he means what we have supposed him to mean, 
his definition is made out at the word, pronoun — Ci The objective 
case is an objective state of a noun or pronoun." Is there any 
snch state? As what? As an objective state of a noun. We 
contend that there is not. If there is such a state, it can be 
found ; yet he has not condescended to define it. If he ever 
comprehended the true character of this state, we are surprised 
to find that he has not told in what it consists — and, if he never 
knew its true character, we are astonished that he should talk so 
much about it ! This objective state must consist in the position 
of the noun — or it cannot exist in our language. Let us, then, 
see whether the objective noun has any fixed place in the sen- 
tence : "'John is a good pupil ; and such pupils all teachers 
admire." 

John, the first nominative, stands before the verb — the noun, 
pupil, the second nominative, stands after the verb ! Admire is 
a transitive verb, and pupils, a noun in the objective case, and is 
placed before this verb ! 

" All thorough teachers will enable their pupils to think." 
Here we find the word, pupils, still in the objective case— yet 

it here stands after the verb ! 

" This is not the thing which he thinks of." 

The objective case of of is found in which, before he ! 

u This is not the thing of which he thinks." 

Here the objective case is found in which, and is placed 

after of I 

Hence we find that there is no certain place which can be 
claimed as the position of the objective case. But even if there 
was, yet, as this place cannot be called a state, Mr. Comly's defi- 
nition of the objective case would be no definition at all ! What, 
then, has Mr. Comly done ? Has he attempted to distinguish two 
things by their colour, which have the same colour ? Yes, he has 
done worse — he has undertaken to distinguish two things by 
colour, when at the same time, neither of the things has any kind 
of colour ! He has attempted to distinguish the nominative case 
by a state which the noun derives from the fact that it is the 
subject of the verb — the noun, however, derives no state from 
this source ! 

He has attempted to distinguish the objective case by a state 
which the noun derives from the fact that it is the object of a 



] 84 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

transitive verb, or a preposition — but the noun derives no state 
from this source ! 

To give a clearer view of this point, it may be well to call the 
attention of the reader to the definition of case itself, as given by 
Mr. Comly. 

" Case is a change, or difference in the termination, or situation 
of a noun or pronoun." 

Now, there are three particular cases ; and each should have 
its proper portion of case itself ! The three special cases he de- 
fines in the following manner : 

1. " The nominative case is simply the name of a thing, or 
the state of a noun, or pronoun, when it is the subject of a verb; 
as, / walk." 

2. " The possessive case denotes property or possession; as, 
thy book." 

3. " The objective case is the state of a noun or pronoun, when 
it is the object of a transitive verb, participle, or preposition \ as, 
I taught her." 

Let us now repeat the author's definition of case itself. 
" Case is a difference or change in the termination or situation 
of a noun or pronoun." 

This definition should be properly distributed among the three 
definitions of the special cases. Has this distribution been made ? 
We undertake to say that it has not. In each of the particular 
definitions, there is a new principle which forms the basis of the 
special definition. a The nominative case is simply the name of 
a thing." 

The generic, or parent definition of case, speaks of no principle 
like that which is denominated in the clause, 
" Is simply the name of a thing !" 
The generic definition says that, 
" Case is a change or difference PI 

Hence the nominative case must be something more than a 
mere name of a thing ! 

Let us now examine the second clause of Mr. Comly's defini- 
tion of the nominative : 

" Or a state of a noun or pronoun when it is the subject of a 

verb." 

Here we admit that Mr. Comly includes indirectly one fact 
which he has presented in his generic definition of case. In the 
definition of case itself, the author says, 



: 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 185 

" A difference in the condition of a noun or pronoun." 

And in his definition of the nominative, he says, 

"State of a noun or pronoun." 

But what state is this to which the author alludes } No state 
at all ! What then % It is something which the peculiar state 
of Mr. Comly compelled him to fancy into being ! The reader 
sees that this state is the very point which we have already dis- 
cussed. And he well knows that in this discussion it is proved 
by examples, that the noun, and pronoun derive no state from the 
fact that they are the signs of the subjects of verbs ? 

1. " The nominative case is simply the name of a thing, or the 
state of a noun or pronoun when it is the subject of a verb; as, 
1 am he." 

2. " The Possessive Case. — The possessive case denotes 
property or possession ; as, thy book." 

Now this definition recognises no one principle contained in the 
definition of case itself. The generic definition gives no intima- 
tion of possession. 

3. " The objective case is a state of a noun or pronoun, when it 
is the object of a transitive verb, participle, or preposition." 

This definition is founded upon a state of a noun, or pronoun— 
and in this respect, it bears an indirect resemblance to the generic 
definition of case. The generic definition speaks of & difference 
in the condition of a noun, or pronoun ; and from this analogous 
phraseology, some resemblance in idea may be inferred. But, it 
will be recollected, that the state upon which this definition of 
the objective case is founded does not exist ! This state is just 
nothing at all ! Does Mr. Comly even attempt to define it ? No 
— he informs the pupil vAen it exists. Ah ! — yes — and at what 
time does it exist 7 Never ! For there is nothing to exist ! But 
Mr. Comly says that it exists at the very instant the noun or pro- 
noun is the object of a transitive verb, participle, or preposition ! 

" The objective case is the state of a noun or pronoun, when it 
is the object of a transitive verb, participle, or preposition !" 

" The objective case is the state of a noun or pronoun." 

But what state of a noun, or pronoun % This question is too 
severe ! 0, no ! says Mr. Comly— I can answeu the question 
with ease ! " It is that particular state which a noun, or a pro- 
noun derives from the fact that it is the object of a transitive verb, 
participle, or preposition !" 

But, Mr. Comly, we have already shown that nouns, and pro- 
nouns derive no fixed \ no certain, no particular state from the fact 

16* 



186 CLASS BOOK OP CRITICISM. 

that they are the objects of these parts of speech ! Does this 
state consist in place, position ? No — for the nominative case 
can occupy the same position which the objective can. 

Does this state consist in length ? No— -for the noun is no 
longer., when in the objective case, than it is when in the nomi- 
native ! 

We ask again*— Can this state consist in the position of the 
word ? No ! The nominative case may come before, as well as 
after the verb— and so may the objective ; as, 

nom. nom. nom. ob. 

" John is a good pupil." " They teach this pupil." 

ob. ob. 

[" That book she purchased."] [That is] (the pen) (which 
nom. 
I made.) 

In the preceding instances, the objective is placed before as 
well as after, the verb. The objective, then, in point of position, 
has nothing different from the nominative ! 

" Case is a change or difference in the termination or condition 
of a noun or pronoun." 

This definition is a mere nothing — it does not apply to our 
nouns, and pronouns, which are in the nominative, and objective 
case. For instance, I and me, are not different terminations of 
the same word — these are two different words ! So it is with she, 
and her, he and him. What is meant by changes in the termina- 
tion of words, may be seen from the different endings of "write ;" 
as, 

s, th, st. Writes, writeM, writes^. 

Perhaps, however, it may be said that, Mr. Comly's definition 
of case, suits who, and whom, thou, and thee. 

It may apply also to the nouns, and pronouns, which are in the 
possessive case , as, my hat, John's glove. But his definition 
applies to no noun which is parsed either in the nominative, or 
the objective case : for the noun undergoes no change with a view 
to fit it for either of these cases. For example — 
" John saw John." 

The first John is in the nominative case — the second, in the 
objective. j 

2. " These lads hurt those lads." 

The first noun is in the nominative case — the second, in the 
objective. 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 187 

But it is the intention of Mr. Comly to secure these nouns by 
the following phraseology : 

" A difference in the condition of a noun or pronoun." 
In this, however, the author is completely defeated — for we 
have more than once shown that these nouns derive no condition 
from the fact that they are the subjects, or objects of verbs ! The 
objective noun may be placed before the verb which governs it. 
To support this position, we have already given many instances 
— but to give the subject all that attention which it deserves, and 
to aid them who require clear, and frequent illustration, we will 
adduce a few other examples : 

1. This is the book which he purchased. 

2. Which did he purchase? 

3. These are fine pupils — -and such children all people must 
admire. 

4. It is nothing vjhich he desires. 

5. It is a fact which I know nothing of. 

Now, if Mr. Comly cannot derive this difference in the con- 
dition of a noun, and pronoun, he cannot sustain his definition of 
case ! . But he may say that this condition is the position itself. 
If so, his objective case is neither more,, nor less than an objective 
position ! Hence case would mean nothing but the place on the 
paper, in which the noun, or the pronoun stands. But as there is 
no certain place in which the objective noun stands, in relation to 
the verb that governs it, there can be no objective position ; 
hence, when we give Mr. Comly all, yea more than he seems to 
claim, his objective case is nothing at all ! 

Mr. Comly first gives a definition of case itself— he then pro- 
ceeds to give definitions of the three different cases, by introduc- 
ing principles entirely different from those contained in the defi- 
nition of case itself! Yes, so far does he depart from his 
first, or general definition of case, that his particular definitions 
have nothing in them having a direct resemblance to case itself ! 

But Mr. Comly's definition of case itself is narrow, illiberal, 
ill constructed, and altogether incompetent ! It speaks of nothing 
which can be found in the grammatical principles of the English 
language ! It is founded upon a difference in the condition of 
nouns — but what this condition is, is yet to be made out ! For 
the author has not thought proper even to attempt to define it ! ! 
Mr. Comly's definition speaks of a a difference in the condition of 
a noun 53 — but would it not be well for him to make out the exis- 
tence of the condition itself, before he attempts to show a difference 
in it ! This prating about the difference in the condition of nouns, 
is disputing about the division of v an estate, where in fact there if* 
no estate for distribution ! 



188 GLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

In giving a definition of the nominative case, Mr* Comly em- 
ploys the word, subject. But this instructor of little children 
gives no kind of explanation of what he means by the phrase, 
nominative case ! 

" The nominatiye case is simply the name of a thing, or the 
state of a noun, or pronoun, when it is the subject of a verb \" 
as, John saw John. 

Now, the first John is in the nominative case. But can the 
pupil see that the first John is any more the subject of the verb 
than the second ? 

u John, this John hurt that John." 

The first John is not the subject of the verb ; for it stands in- 
dependent of the verb — yet the first John is in the nominative 
case ! " Subject of a verb" is much like the " difference in a 

condition /" 

In point of fact there is nothing which is a subject of a verb. 
Things, perhaps, may be divided into subjects, and objects — but 
not upon the mere circumstance, or fact of having their names 
mechanically connected with verbs ! As well might it be said 
that one's ears are subjects, because they are connected with his 
head, as that nouns are subjects, because they are connected with 
verbs ! But to say that one noun is converted into a subject 
through the magic of this connection, while the other is degraded 
to a mere object of the same connection, is queer, indeed ! Why, 
has the noun in the nominative case any closer connection with 
the verb than the noun in the objective ?— 

" John, this John hurt that John" 

The first John has no sort of connection with the verb, hurt, — 
yet it is in the nominative case ! 

The last John has a close connection with this verb ; yet it is 
in the objective case ! 

How, then, does Mr. Comly support his definition of the nomi- 
native case ? 

The distinction between a subject, and an object, is a very im- 
portant point — a point which we think Mr. Comly should have 
understood, before making the above use of the word, subject. 

" The nominative case is the subject of a verb ;" as, John is 
John. John hurt John. 

Now, what great difference is there between the two Johns, — 
one following is, and the other hurt I That which follows is, is 
in the nominative case— that which follows hurt, is in the ob- 
jective ! 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 



189 



Has Mr. Murray, or Mr. Comly, or has any other writer upon 
this science, explained the difference between a subject, and an 
object ? Not one— nor do we believe that the authors of the vast 
numbers of English Grammars that have*distracted this science, 
and blinded the public vision, have ever understood the principle 
upon which a distinction may be made, that will justify the use 
of the words, subject, and object, in a system of grammar. 

1. " The subject of a verb.' 5 

2. " The nominative case is the subject of a verb." 

Absurd as it may appear, they who have written our English 
Grammars, have used the phraseology, 

" Subjects of verbs,' 5 and objects of verbs, as though these 
were points which the learner instinctively comprehends ! 

We put the following question to all the friends to, and foes of, 
the British system of English grammar : 

Is the noun itself the subject of the verb, or is the person, or 
thing denoted by the noun, the subject of the verb } 

If they tell us that it is the noun itself, then, indeed, the sub- 
jective character of a noun depends entirely upon the noun's 
frame-work relation to the verb ! And as the objective noun is 
as closely connected with the verb as the subjective, it follows 
that all nouns having a frame-work relation with verbs, are the 
subjects of verbs — hence, all nouns are in the nominative case ! 
" John saw John," " John hurt himself.'' 

But, if they tell us, as does Mi\ Murray, that the subject is 
not the noun, but the thing denoted by the noun, then, indeed, all 
the words, in the same "sentence, denoting the same thing, are 
subjects of verbs. For instance — John hurt himself. 

Here John, and himself, mean the same person. And, if the 
word, John, is put into the nominative because the real person is 
the subject, what becomes of the word himself? Does not him- 
self denote the subject as clearly as does the word John t Does 
not himself allude to the same being to whom John refers ? What, 
then, becomes of the doctrine that a word is in the nominative 
case because it refers to the person, or thing that is "principally 
spoken of I V 

Matter and Thought Grammar — page 54. Mr. Cardell 
remarks — 

" Nouns stand in different relations to other words : as, Henry 
conquered Richard — Richard conquered Henry." 

The compiler observes, under the same page, that. 



190 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

" The nominative case denotes the performer of an action : and 
the objective, the object which receives its effects ; as, 

" They sent a letter to him." 

" He sent an ansmir to them." 

This epistolary correspondence is nearly equal to the ball, and 
boat illustration i " The nominative case denotes the performer ;" 
as, a letter was sent by him to them! A letter was sent to them 
by him ! They were written to by him ! He was written to by ' 
them ! J 

Now, let it be observed, that the compiler's, position is, that 
the one who writes to the other, is the nominative — and that the 
one who is written to is the object. 

1. A letter was sent to him by them ! 

2. A letter was written to them by him ! 

Them, and him, consequently, are objective pronouns in the 
nominative case, and governed by the preposition, by! 

" Whichever did the action is the nominative, the other is the 

objective.'' — Cae.dell. 

1. He was written to by them! 

2. They were written to by him ! 

As Mr. Cardell says, that the one who does not write, or that 
does not do the action, is in the objective, it follows that he, and 
they are in the objective case to the verbs was written, and were 
written ! Hence the old rule should read thus, 

The verb must agree with the objective case in number and 
person ! 

" Whichever did the action is the nominative, the other is the 
objective." 

That is, if the bull carried off the boat, then, the bull is the 
nominative, and the boat is the object ; as, " the boat was carried 
off by the bull /" 

But, if the boat carried off the bull, then, the boat is the nomi- 
native, and the bull is the object ; as, the bull was carried off by 
the boat ! 

So much for Mr. Car dell's attempt to form a Grammar for the 
English language, according to the laws of matter and thought. 
But this polyglot Grammarian will be able to mend the rigging of 
this boat, launch it de novo, and shoot away by his compass of 
matter and thought ! We admit that we pay very little respect 
to Mr. CardelPs matter and thought Grammer. But it may not 
be proper, in this place, te give our reasons for this want of re- 
spect. To proceed — 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 191 

" The objective case expresses the object of an action or of a 
relation ; as, Saul persecuted the Christians in every synagogue." 

The word, Saul, is in the nominative case to the verb, perse- 
cuted ; the word, Christians, is in the objective case, governed by 
persecuted ; the word, synagogue, is in the objective case, govern- 
ed by in, 

Let us now ascertain whether this manner of caseing comports 
with the definition of the cases. 

The objective case, according to the definition, is that into 
which the words are put, that are the names of things acted upon. 
If so, the word, Christians, is doubtless in the objective, as the 
example now stands. 

Invert the order of these words, and view this matter — " The 
Christians were persecuted by Saul in every Synagogue." 

As the sentence first stands, the word, Christians, is truly in 
the objective case. But, as it here stands, we are told that the 
same word is not in the objective, but in the nominative case ! 
Now, does it appear from the definition of the objective case, that 
a mere change in the collocation of words, is to wrest the same 
noun from the objective, and put it into the nominative case ? 
What says the definition ? It asserts as decidedly as words can 
declare, that the name of the thing acted upon, is in the objective 
case. But we ask whether any one can pretend, when the pre- 
ceding example reads thus : 

" The Christians were persecuted by Saul, — " 

That the word, Christians, is not the name of the persons acted 
upon, equally as much as when the example stands in the follow- 
ing order : 

" Saul persecuted the Christians." 

Does the new collocation of the words so entirely change the 
fact affirmed ? If not, the word, Christians, is in the objective 
case just as much when the example reads thus : 
4 The Christians were persecuted by Saul — " 
as it is when the assertion is made with the words in this order : 

"Saul persecuted the Christians.^ 

But we are told that this point is made logical by calling, was 
'persecuted, a passive verb ; therefore, let us set aside the error 
for a moment, and consider the grounds of its justification. The 
verb, persecuted, is the name of an action by which persons harass 
each other. The word, passive, alludes to the state of whatever 
is acted upon. Now, then, we ask whether the action, performed 
by Saul, in this scene, was passive, or whether the Christians 
were passive ? Was the action of Saul, affected ; or were the 



192 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

Christians affected ? How would the Christians themselves answer 
this question 1 Would they say that they suffered nothing in this 
scene, — that Saul's action did not terminate upon them, but upon 
itself ? If so, the name of his action must be passive, instead of 
the word. Christians, the name of the persons really acted upon ! 

If the sentence stands thus : 

" The Christians were persecuted by Saul. 55 

The verb, persecuted, is a passive verb, because it is acted upon ! 

But if it stands in this manner : 

" Saul persecuted the Christians." 

Then, the Christians themselves are acted upon, and, conse- 
quently 3 the word, Christians, is put into the objective case ! 
Strange reasoning this ! 

We can perceive no difference between persecuted, and an active 
verb. An active verb, says the old theory, " expresses an action 
that passes" from the actor, and terminates upon some object ! 
Now, the word, persecuted, does express an action which did ter- 
minate upon the christians. 

And we are told that the verb, persecuted, in the following 
arrangement, is in fact an active verb : " Saul persecuted the 
Christians." But does this verb signify any less passion, or 
Buffering, in this collocation than in the following? 

" The Christians were persecuted by Saul." 

The truth is, that according to the definition of a passive verb, 
persecuted is a passive verb in one order as much as in the other, 
since it does express in both, what constitutes a passive verb — 
and according to the character of an active verb, persecuted is an 
active verb in both constructions ! 

Having taken a cursory view of the ground upon which the 
word, Christians, is wrested from the objective case, we will now 
proceed to consider the manner in which the noun, Saul, is parsed 
with the words in the following order : 

" The Christions were persecuted by Saul." 

Here, it is manifest, that Saul himself was the actor ; and the 
question now is in what case is the noun 3 Saul? 

By the old theory this name is parsed thus j 

Saul is a proper noun, third person, singular number, in the 
objective case, governed by the preposition, by. 

But the word, Saul, is not the name of the pers6n acted upon ; 
it is the name of the actor ; therefore it cannot be in the objective 
case. 

It is pretended, however, that there are objects of relation ; 






CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 193 

hence it is our duty to see whether the noun, Saul, can be put 
into the objective case upon this principle. 

The definition first asserts that the objective case is the name. 
of the object of an action, and then puts in the clause u or of a 
relation" 

James sits by John. 

For one moment, let us say, that because the real person called 
James, sits near the person denominated John, the noun James, 
should be parsed in the objective case. Now, how, on this prin- 
ciple, can we avoid finding John in the objective case likewise ? 
Is not John as near to James, as James is to John ! Must not, 
consequently both John and James be equally the objects of this 
objective relation ! ? 

Before the noun, John, can be put into the nominative, and the 
word, James, into the objective case, let it appear that James is 
nearer to John, than John is to James ! 

" Let us," says Mr. Murray, " have a comprehensive objective 
case ; one that -will include all the objects of action, as well as 
those of relation." 

His objective case not only includes both these ; but unfortu- 
nately, it extends to the nominative, and possessive case also. If 
the relation of words, or of things, is a foundation for an objective 
case, ail words which have a relation, are in the objective case ; 
hence, conjunctions, adverbs, verbs, adjectives, and even prepo- 
sitions themselves must be in the objective case, or they have no 
relation to other words ! But if these parts of speech have no 
relation to other words, on what, we ask, are the rules founded, 
that adverbs qualify ve?*bs ; that adjectives qualify nouns ; that 
articles limit nouns ; that prepositions govern nouns, &c. ? Will 
it be said that all these parts of speech are in the objective case ? 
This must be done, or the objective case, founded upon illation, 
must be set aside ! 

But what is the particular use of the objective case ? The 
question is answered by the theory of which this case itself is a 
fair sample. One of the grounds upon which the objective case is 
considered advantageous, is convenience in grammatical solution ; 
another is the importance, that it can be said, we have no nouns 
which cannot be cased — but the last, and that most particularly 
depended upon, is its use by way of distinction between the actor, 
and the object of the action. 

But, is it true that the name of the object is always in the ob- 
jective ? or, rather, is it not true that the name of the actor is as 
often in the objective as : n the nominative ; and is it not true 

17 



194 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM* 

that the name of the object is as often in the nominative as in the 
objective 1 

AN EXAMPLE. 

sc The Christians were persecuted by Saul" 

Will it be said that in this sentence, the name of the object has 
the objective case ? and must it not be admitted that Saul, the 
name of the actor, is parsed in the objective case ? 

But the absurdity does not end here : for, in many sentences, 
the name of the thing which neither acts, nor is acted upon, is 
put into the objective case. " The Christians were persecuted 
by Saul in every synagogue." 

It is said that the objective case is the name of the object ; but 
the word, Saul, is the name of the actor ; yet it is in the objec- 
tive; hence contradiction. The word, Christians, which is the 
name of the persons aoted upon, is in the nominative case instead 
of the objective ; hence absurdity. But the noun, synagogue, is 
neither the name of the actor, nor the name of an object ; 
yet this noun is said to be in the objective case ;— and here, too, 
is absurdity ! 

Can the old theory inform the learner, that the name of the 
actor is in the nominative case, or that the name of the object is- 
in the objective, when in truth the name of the actor is as often 
in the objective as in the nominative, and the name of the object 
as often in the nominative as in the objective ! ? And what is 
still more perplexing, is, that the name of what neither acts, nor 
is acted upon, is parsed, in two-thirds of the instances, in the 
objective case 1 ! 

Doctor Bullions defines the objective case as follows, 

" The objective case denotes the object of some action or rela- 
tion ; as, James assists Thomas, they live in Albany.'' 

Thomas, and Albany, are in the objective case. 

What is an object of an action ? 

We understand that aa object of an action, is the thing on 
which an action terminates ; as, 

1. Thomas was assisted by James. {Thomas,) 

2. "Apples were eaten by me." [Apples.) 

3. The eye is affected by the light. [Eye.) 

Yet, astonishing as it may appear, the nouns, Thomas, apples, 
and eye, are in the nominative case ! ! 

" They live in Albany." 

As the word, Albany, is employed by Mr. Bullions to illustrate 
the part of his definition of the objective case, which is founded 
on relation, it may be well to inquire what is an object of relation. 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 195 

c < The objective ease denotes the object of some action or rela- 
tion." 

That is, the objective ease denotes an object of some action ; or 
it denotes an object of some relation 

" An object of relation" 

What does this language mean ? 

We are honest — we do not intend to quibble ; we declare that 
we can not comprehend this language. 

Why has not Mr. Bullions explained what he means by an object 
of some relation ? The only way in which we can understand this 
language, is, that where different things bear a relation to one an- 
other, they are objects of relation. No other meaning can we 
give to this phraseology : 

" The object of a relation.'' 1 

But of all the names of the objects of relation, which one is to 
be in the objective case % 

" They live in Albany." 

They bear a relation to Albany — and Albany bears a relation 
to them ! Which, then, is the object of this local relation ? Both 
are objects of this relation ! Why, then, is not they as much in 
the objective case as Albany ! ? 

u John is with his uncle." 

These two persons are together — hence they are both the ob- 
jects of this common relation. Yet, while uncle is parsed in the 
objective case upon the ground of the relation which the uncle 
himself bears to John, John is parsed, not in the objective case 
at all, but in the nominative ! It is so — question it who may. 

" John is with his uncle." 

How much nearer is the uncle to John than John is to the 
uncle ! \ We fancy that we hear Mr. Bullions himself say, " they 
are equally near." 

Yet John is not the object of the relation which he bears to the 
uncle .' How, then, can the uncle be the object of the relation 
which he bears to John ! ? 

T. S, Smith Esq. says, we have long enough been taught that— 

" Of two or more things equally related, but one is the object 
of the relation ; as, John stands by Robert" 

In an English Grammar by Pardon Davis, we find the follow- 
ing under page 37— 

" PREPOSITION." 

Any word showing the relative position of two persons or 
things, is a preposition ; as, He is near Philadelphia. The book 
is on the table. — Pardon Davis. 



196 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 

Here it is openly said that all the things bear a relation — and 
it is most clearly proved to be so by the very examples which are 
employed to illustrate the doctrine. 

1. " He is near Philadelphia." 

2. "John is near Philadelphia." 

Can it be said that Philadelphia is in the objective case on the 
ground of the relation which this city bears to John % It must 
be said, then, that John is in the objective case, on the ground 
of the relation which he bears to this city ! 

Groold Brown says,- — 

The objective case is that form, or state of a noun or pronoun 
which denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition ; 
as, I know the boy. — Goold Brown. 

u I know the boy." 

Here boy is in the objective case. 

The boy is known by me. 

Here boy is in the nominative case ! But, has the word, boy, 
changed its form ? It is boy in the objective ; and it is boy in 
the nominative ! ! 

But it may be said that the word, boy, has changed its state ! .* 

1. " I know the boy." 

2. "The boy is known by me." 

In both instances this noun denotes the person who is known. 
How, then, has it changed its state ? 

But let us inquire what is the meaning of the language — 

" The object of a verb, participle, or preposition. 

Has Mr. Brown told us what the object of a verb is ! 1 Has 
he told us what the object of a preposition is ? Has he told us 
what the object of a participle is 1 Not a word is said upon these 
points in his whole book ! Let us, then, see if we can devise 
what an object of a verb is : 

The object of a verb is the word which the meaning of the 
verb suggests to the mind as a proper word to be used with the 
verb. For instance — the verb, drinks, suggests the use of the 
words, water, milk, tea, coffee, cider, wine, &c. 

" Henry drinks tea out of a cup." 

As we do not drin-k cups, the word which drinks suggests, is 
tea. The word, tea, then, may be considered the object of drinks. 

DRINKS. 

But the meaning of drinks not only suggests a word denoting 
something which we drink — as water, wine, but it suggests a word 
denoting some being that drinks, — as man, boy, girl, ox, horse. 

Let us, then, supply these two suggested words : 

Henry drinks wine. 



OiASS book; 6f criticism. 197 

The meaning of drinks requires both words, — Henry, and wine. 
Which then is the object ! ? Is not the thing after which D. 
reaches with his left hand, as much an object as that after which 
he reaches with his right hand ! f 

" John saw the bird fly." 

The word, saw, reaches, after John as much as it does after 
bird. Which noun, then, is the object of saw ? 

What is the object after which fly reaches ? Does the meaning 
of the word, fly, suggest John, or bird, or both % Fly reaches 
toward bird. Bird, then, is^ the object of fly. 

" The bird was seen to fly by John.' 3 

Let us see whether the has not an objective case ! 

1. The — the what ? The, but the what? The surely reaches 
after some sign, some objective word. " The bird." Bird, then, 
is the objective word of the ! But bird is in the nominative case. 
Bird in the nominative case ! ? Why, was is constantly reaching 
after bird. Was— hut was what? What was ? Bird was. Bird, 
then, is the objective word of was f 

2. Seen also reaches after some word to sustain itself. Was 
seen. What was seen ? Bird was seen. Bird, then, is an object 
of seen. 

But seen is not perfectly satisfied yet. Seen still reaches for 
some word which denotes the being who saw. The bird was seen 
— hence some being must have seen it. Seen, then, makes sense 
with bird, and John, after which words it constantly reaches ! 

3. To—to what ? This preposition, like every other branch 
word, reaches after some super, some basis word to sustain it in 
the connection in which it stands in this verbal frame-work. To 
what 1 is constantly addressed to the mind. The answer to this 
standing interrogation, is fly. To fly. The \ T erh,fly, then, is in 
the objective case after to ! ! 

4. By— by what ? By John. John, then, is the object of by. 
Let us repeat Mr-. Brown's definition of the objective case : 

" The objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, 
which denotes the object of a verb, participle or preposition ; as, 
I know the boy" 

This definition is founded, not upon the object of action, and 
relation, but upon the object of a reference to, a pointing to, a 
reaching after. The words in a sentence, which can not stand 
alone, reach after some other words in the verbal frame-work to 
sustain them. The arms by which' these words reach, are the 
significations, and the branch character of the words. And, as 
whatever is pursued, referred to, or reached after, becomes an 
object, the words to which the referring words relate, or after 



]98 CLASS BOOK OP CRITICISM. 

which the reaching words reach? may be called the objects of the 
referring, of the reaching, words, 

" I know the boy." 

The word, know, refers directly to I, and hoy. /know boy. 

Hence I, and boy, are the objects to which know points — and 
after which it actually reaches. 

The refers, not to I, but to boy. The I does not give the idea 
— not the true sense. The boy expresses the true sense, and con- 
nection. The object of the, then., is boy. 

The change, therefore, which Goold Brown has made in the 
basis of the objective ease, is certainly a striking improvement 
upon Murray ! ! 

" The objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, 
which denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition : as, 
I know the boy. 

But will the boy ever know the objective case ! % 

Mr. Brown remarks in his Preface, that, 

He has not laboured to overthrow the general system of gram- 
mar, received from time immemorial, but to improve upon it, in its 
present application to our tongue. — Gooli> Brown. 

That Mr. Brown has improved upon Mr. Murray's absurdities 
there can be no doubt ! 

The objective case expresses the object of an action or of a 
relation.— Murray, 

This definition places the nominative ease in the objective — 
and the objective in the nominative. But it does not like that 
given by G-oold Brown, place verbs in the objective case — nor 
does it like Mr. B.'s, give articles, adjectives, conjunctions, and 
adverbs the objective case ! ! 

Mr. Bradford Frazee, says, 

" Case means the position of the name in the sentence^ with 
respect to other words. 55 (Page 25.) 

Under page 26, he says, 

"The nominative case is the naming case I 5? 

Under page 27, he says, 

" The nominative case does something — the possessive case owns 
something — the objective case has something done to it !" 

Let us illustrate these golden principles : 

" The nominative case is the naming case.* 5 

" He is not thou." 

He is in the nominative case — but is he a name 1 If the word, 
he, is a name, why is not this word a noun ? 

Thou is in the naming case ! But Mr. Frazee says tbat thou 
is not a noun, because it is not a name ! 



CLASS BOOK. ~0F CRITICISM. 199 

\ 

If the nominative case is the naming case, why is not every 
name in the nominative case ! ? 

" He purchased a book of Johnson." 

1. He, although not a name, is in the naming case I 

2. But book) although a name, is not in the naming case, but 
in the objective ! ! 

And Johnson, the name of the person of whom he made the 
purchase, is not in the nominative, but in the objective case I I 

1. " The nominative case does something ;" as, 
The rock was smitten by Moses ! 

2. " The possessive case owns something ;" as, 
Henry owns Bradford Freezers Grammar ! ! 

3. " The objective case has something done to it}" as, 
The rock was smitten by Moses ! 

Yes, yes, — the objective case has something done to it } it has 
been murdered ! 

Let us examine the manner in which the nouns, and pronouns, 
are disposed of in constructions like the following : 

" I am the lad." " It is they." « He is I." " He is not /." 
" This pupil is not John Foster." " John Foster is not the pupil 
whom I taught." 1. I am the lad." 

The pronoun, 2, is in the nominative case to am. The noun, 
lad, is also in the nominative case to am ! But how very different 
is that relation which the pronoun, I, bears to am, from that which 
the noun, lad, bears to this verb ! Can we say — The lad am ? 
Now, if the nominative case is any thing, and lad bears a nomina- 
tive case relation to am, why is it that we cannot say— The lad 
am ? Has lad no relation with am ? Is it not meant that lad is 
in the nominative case with respect to am ? If lad is not in the 
nominative case with respect to am, in respect to what verb is it 
in the nominative case ! 1 Is lad in the nominative case ! ? Is 
lad in the nominative case without reference to any verb ! ? Is 
this noun in the nominative case independent of all verbs I ? Are 
we told that this noun is in the nominative case after am I But 
does the word, after, show the relation of lad to am — or does it 
merely point out on which side of am this noun stands'? Why, 
the pronoun, I, may stand after the verb ; 

" Am I not free V " I am the lad." 

I, and lad, are both parsed in the nominative case — and they 
are both parsed in the nominative case in reference to this one 
verb, am ! But how different are the relations which these two 
nominatives bear to this verb ! 

It may not be amiss to cite the rule which the British Gram- 
marians apply in instances like the one before us — 

The verb to be, through all its variations, has the same case 
after it which it has before it. — Murray. 



200 CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM* 

The propriety of the rule is obvious, for both nouns express 
the same thing.— Murray. 

Now, according to this doctrine, I, and myself*, as used in the 
following instance, are both in the same case — " /hurt myself" 

The two pronouns, in this sentence, mean the same person ; and 
if identity in thing, or person^ throws bo^h nouns into the same 
case, the word, myself, is not in the objective case, as the British 
Grammarians say, but in the nominative after the verb hurt ! 

Again. [" I am not] (the lad) (whom you taught.") 

As lad, and 1, mean different persons, what is to become of the 
noun, lad ? Is it in the nominative case after am, upon the ground 
that it denotes the same person denoted by 27 ? Here it is seen* 
that, while the solution of myself, in the first example, distracts 
Mr. Murray's rule, the solution of lad^ in the second, saps its very 
foundation — identity, 

In what way will the words in italics be disposed of according 
to the old school Grammars % 

1. " I am the lad." 2. « I am not the lad.'' 3. " It is they." 
4. " It is not 2." 5. "I am the lad whom you taught." 

How, we ask, is whom to be parsed ? We ask, because /, lad, and whom, 
mean the same person! Is whom in the nominative case after am? If the 
doctrine of identity is sound, it must be parsed in this way J And if this doc- 
trine is unsound, how are the nouns in italics, in the following sentences, to 
be parsed ? 

1. I am not the lad. 2, It is not John. 3. This is not the boy 
for whom you search. 4. Truth is not falsehood. 5, [Falsehood 
is not truth] (except in grammar !) 

Finally, let us exhibit an instance, in which the three cases assemble in the 
same word : 

Yours were punished ! " Hers were acquitted, " 

Yours denotes the subject of the verb ; it denotes the object of the action 
also ; and all our Grammars give it as the possessive case of you. Yes, with' 
in the orthographical boundaries of one short word, w r e find this triplicate 
group of cases, floating upon liquid error, ebbing and flowing before the in 
fluence of habit and education ! 

Let no man say, that to introduce the noun, a letter or two must be severed 
from the pronoun ; as, your children were punished. 

These examples are purely good English, as they now stand : and oui 
system of cases should enable us to parse them without collision or diminution. 

Thus, we have traced the cases through alternate succession of error, ant' 
mystery, till they have convened in one short word ! And here we leave the 
convention in the shape of a grammatical jubilee, celebrating the day even 
in advance of their dissolution, and final departure from the English grammar. 

But has the " Rational System" a remedy ? None at all ! The disease of 
the old theory is constitutional, and is past a cure. Constitutional ? ! Yes — 
the disease is constitutional, and consists in the very want of a constitution ! . 
The Rational System is presented, not as a remedy for the old apparatus, but 
as a substitute for it. The substitute is built upon a new bottom, constructed 
upon Rational principles, and composed of new materials. Yes — it has left 
the old structure groaning under the weight of incurable disease — it has left 
it to fall into one massive pile of monumental glory to the memory of Murray — 
it has left it to tumble, and to crush those who have {inhered it into contor- 
tions, and themselves into authors ! (Substitute — p, 146.) 



CLASS BOOK OF CRITICISM. 201 

The Rational Grammar is now complete : the three books of which it 
consists, are now published — and they may be had of the author, at No 
15, South Tenth Street. 

* What is the Rational Grammar ?" 

1. The Rational Grammar is a full Grammatical system, founded 
upon principles entirely Rational, and highly important. 

2. The Rational Grammar is a Grammatical system which settles 
all the points contested among teachers, — resolves all the difficulties 
of the pupil, — and relieves the mind of all grammatical scruples. 

3. It sets aside mere theories, — exposes their unsoundness, demon- 
strates the little use of attending to them, — and presents to the world, 
the unerring, and the only way, to the structure of an English sentence. 

4. The Rational Grammar urges the mind of the student to invention, 
and thought — it fixes the technicals, and principles in his mind, by em- 
ploying his perceptive powers. 

5. It undeceives the most accomplished, and instructs the most pro- 
found Grammarian. 

May we not, then, expect the aid of the teacher, the editor, the clergy- 
man, the lawyer, the statesman, and the philanthropist, in procuring a 
fair trial of this system ? We ask this, because we verily believe that 
we have a just claim to it. And we expect to get it, because we ask it 
to benefit those of whom we ask it. We claim nothing on the score 
of merit— we ask our country to benefit itself by the adoption of the 
works which have cost one of her native children, a life of labour, and a 
world of pains. 

THE QUESTIONS TO BE DECIDED. 

1. Is the old theory of English Grammar, as compiled hy L. Murray, 
and changed, (not improved,) by others, sound enough to be tolerated ? 

2. Is the Rational system, by James Bbxjwx, perfectly sound ? 

3. Will the advantages resulting rom the adoption of the Rational 
system, be sufficiently great to compensate for the inconvenience oi 
adopting it ? 

THE BOOKS OF THE RATIONAL SYSTEM. 
BOOK I. 
As this Book which is now used in the Public Schools, is not a substi- 
tute for the old theory, it may be used without inconvenience with any of 
the old English Grammars. 

The matter presented in Book I., is new, and of great importance to 
the learner of the old theory. 

BOOK II. 

This Book which is now used in the Public Schools, is offered as a 
substitute for the old theory — and, although it employs the old technical 
terms in parsing, its principles, and definitions are entirely new. 

BOOK III. 

This Book which has not yet been offered to the Board of Controllers, 
is not a substitute for the old theory — hence it may be used very conveni- 
ently with any of the works on the old plan, without Book I., and with- 
out Book II. , of the Rational System. About one hundred pages of this 
Book, are devoted to a discussion of the prepositions. 

the exd of the fie&t volume* 



202 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Of Brow7i ) s First Book on English Grammar* 



Philadelphia June 6th, 1843 
About a year ago I examined with great care the First Book 
of Brown's English Grammar, and became satisfied that this part 
of the author's theory should be made a standard school book ; and, 
as soon as the resolution of the Board of Control, allowing it to be 
used in all the public schools of which they have the superinten- 
dence, had been passed, I set about introducing it into the New 
Market Street School. Forty-eight boys in this school, have used 
Book I., for seven, or eight months. And although I do not con- 
sider it a substitute for an English Grammar, I feel convinced that 
as a Reading, and as an Exercise book on the constructive princi- 
ples of the English Language, it is a most powerful auxiliary both 
in teaching, and learning the old English Grammar. Ever since I 
have felt capable of appreciating a sound English Education, I have 
hailed, with great pleasure, every new effectual means for promo- 
ting it; and among the many which I have labored to adopt, I have 
met with none, in which I have felt more satisfaction than in the 
First Book of Brown's English Grammar. I wish to see common 
English words substituted for the newly formed ones which in my 
opinion constitute the only objection to the work.* 

JOHN M. COLEMAN, 
Principal of New Market Street Public School. 



Philadelphia, October 19th, 1850. 

I have read Brown's First Book on the Grammar of the Englisa 
Language, with great care. It is a new production — indeed almost 
entirely original. It treats of a part of grammatical science on 
which Mr. Murray, and his simplifiers, are perfectly silent. Yet 
the principles which the book inculcates seem to be the very basis 
of English Grammar. The author has greatly simplified, and im 
proved the work by a judicious substitution of common English 
words for the newly formed ones which he originally used in this 
part of his new system. 

If patience, per sever -ence, and complete success in the formation 
of a book, entitles one to the patronage of the public, James Brown 
is deserving of it. P. A. CREGAR, 

Principal of the S. E. Grammar School. 

* The author lias recently made this substitution 



XtECOM M END ATI ON S . 

Philadelphia, Nov. 19, 1849. 

Fjr the last few years the subject of education lias occupie 
an unusual share of public attention, and a motley crowd of pro- 
fessors has rapidly succeeded each other in their attempts to en- 
lighten us upon the best mode of imparting knowledge to the 
youthful mind. And though vanity has not unfrequently as- 
sisted in swelling the list of competitors for public favour in this 
department, the ordinary stimulus to this course, we regret to 
say, has been a sacred thirst for gold. Accordingly, we have had 
in the sKape of primers, spelling-books, and grammars, every 
thing that uneducated ingenuity, stolid dullness or vapid preten- 
sion, could contrive to manufacture, by combining and re-combin- 
ing the faulty elements of unphilosophical systems ; and the doses 
have been administered in more or less nauseous forms, as the 
natural ability of "the book-doctor has been small or large. Some- 
times a work, though unsound indeed in its conception and faulty 
in its execution, has avoided shocking the taste by a certain sym- 
metry of structure (which has made it readable), whilst too often, 
under the parade of a sounding title-page and professional com- 
mendations, the rude and disjointed members of a dozen vicious 
theories, have been crowded into one mass of confusion, and the 
unhappy student "perplexed in the extreme," has in vain attempted 
to traverse, dry-shod, the Serbonianbog which he has been tempted 
to enter by the Jack-o'-lantern of the grammar-menders and gram- 
mar-kings. 

An attempt, however, has been made by a man, who has brought 
profound acquirements, and much originality of thought, to what 
has been with him, a labour of love, to give an exposition of the 
true constructive principles of the English language. For more 
than twenty years, manfully buffeting the tide of ignorance and 
interest, which has opposed him, Mr. James Brown has at length 
succeeded in awakening the attention of a sluggish public to the 
crudities and follies which have disfigured the thousand so-called 
grammars, with which our schools, public and private, have been 
flooded ; and with patient analysis, yet luminous comprehensive- 
ness, leaving the old Murray theory, but adhering to the true 
principles of our language, he has given us a system of English 
Grammar which is really both simple and philosophic. 

It is not our purpose, however, now, and we mistrust our ability 
for the task at any time, to give an exegesis of the more scientific 
works of Mr. Brown. It is enough to say, that they have been 
approved by those whose praise is valuable, because discriminat- 
ing and sincere. Our present object is to direct attention to two 
elementary works by Mr. Brown, recently published under the 
title of the "First," and the "Second Bound in the Ladder of 
Education," which we are most happy to learn there is a present 
design of introducing into our Public Schools. An examination 
of the ingenious and complete method, which constitutes the 
First Bound, for fixing in the youthful mind, not only the names ) 



RECOMMENDATIONS. 

but the sounds of the twenty-six letters in the English alphabet 
and impressing them permanently upon the mind of the child, must 
demonstrate the superiority of this little work over all books pro- 
fessing to treat of the same subject. In the Second Round, which 
is principally appropriated to the teaching of the prefixes, syllable- 
reading, ivord-reading, and sentence-reading , we have been particu- 
larly struck with the admirable diagrammatic method adopted to 
illustrate the meaning of those prepositions which most commonly 
occur in speech. The explanations both of the mechanism and of 
the meaning of the prefixes cannot be too highly valued ; since, in Mr. 
Brown's own words, " the great importance of an early acquaint- 
ance with these is established from the consideration that a 
thorough knowledge of them enables the child to determine the 
general import of nearly twenty thousand words." The trial read- 
ings are particularly useful in exercising what the common modes 
of instruction seem not to regard — the mind of the pupil. 

But in this notice it is impossible to call attention to all of the 
excellences of Mr. Brown's books. His system has the rare merit 
of being both sound, and consistent, and of attaining to its end by 
the shortest, and clearest road. That these books will supplant 
the present elementary works of instruction, will soon, we believe, 
be a fact no less fixed than that the lumbering Conestoga wagon 
has given place to the rapid and powerful locomotive. 

George W. Biddle. 



Philadelphia, Nov. 21st, 1849. 
I have used the " First," and the " Second Round in the Ladder 
of Education" in my school for several months ; and I have be- 
come fully satisfied that their merits are superlatively great. The 
author of these books deserves the praise to which the most excel- 
lent deeds can entitle one. But his good works do not stop here ; 
he has constructed a new system of English Grammar, which must 
place every nation that uses the English language under great 
obligations to him. Mrs. Mary Whitesides, 

Principal of the Female Seminary, corner of Washington and 
Wayne streets, Spring Garden. 



[From Godey's Lady's Book, November, 1849.] 
First and Second Round in the Ladder oe Education. — 
These two extremely valuable books are by the celebrated school- 
book author, James Brown. He has struck out an entirely new 
path in teaching, and one that will redound to his credit in future 
years. It may seem strange that the philosophy of language and 
of sounds, can be taught to a child with the alphabet, but it is so, 
as a faithful adherence to these books will prove. With them go 
a picture card called "The Hand Nomascope," and a convenient 
sheet called " The Alphascope." We are anxious to call the spe- 
cial attention of teachers to this curious and useful series of works* 



RECOMMENDATIONS OP BOOK SECOND. 

Philadelphia, January, 18 )4. 

I nave read the Second Book of Mr. Brown's Rational 
System of English Grammar ; and I am glad to find that the 
author has built on better principles than those on which the old 
theory is formed. Several months ago, I read the First Book 
of the Rational System of English Grammar ; and I was much 
pleased with it. I found that it contains none of the errors which 
pervade the common Englisn Grammars. But, as I ascribed its 
freedom from error to the fact that the First Book is not a sub- 
stitute for the Grammars now in use, I commenced my examination 
of the Second Book which is designed as a substitute for the old 
theory of English Grammar, with great fear that the work would 
turn out to be a mere re-publication of the old Grammars. I find, 
however, that Mr. Brown has substituted Rational doctrines for 
the absurdities which have always been taught as the principles 
of our language. Instead of saying, as do the old Books of Eng- 
lish Grammar, English Grammar is the art of speaking, and writ- 
ing the English Language with propriety, Mr. Brown says, that 
English philology is the science of the English language, and the 
art of using it with propriety in all respects. He says, too, that 
English philology is divided into two parts, viz : English Signifi- 
cation, and English Grammar. 

English Signification, says he, the first part of English phil- 
ology, is the science of giving words a signification, and the art of 
using them with significant propriety. 

English Grammar, the second part of English philology, is the 
science of the construction of the English language, and the art 
of using it with constructive propriety. 

But what says the old theory ? English Grammar is the science 
of the English Language. 

While the old theory makes English Grammar the whole science 
of the English Language, the Rational System makes English 
Grammar the mere constructive principles of the English Lan- 
guage. 

That English Grammar does not embrace the whole science of 
the English Language, is too clear to require one remark. Eng- 
lish Grammar embraces clearly every constructive principle of the 
English Language. 

I consider the Second Book of the Rational System, a sound produc- 
tion, and I most heartily hope that the work will be put into the hands 
of all school children at once. I consider James Brown the best English 
Grammarian in the world ; in the formation of his Rational System of 
English Grammar, he has done a good deed for his country ; and I verily 
believe that it is the duty of us all to endeavour to promote its introduc- 
tion as a partial compensation for the bravery with which this soldier in 
the war of innovation, has long, and triumphantly fought our battle. 

P. A. BROWNE. 



RECOMMENDATIONS. 

31st March, 1854. 
My Dear Sir, 

It is more than forty years since I opened any book on Grammar, 
and I therefore feel myself very incompetent to form an opinion on the 
comparative merit of the work you were kind enough to leave on my 
office-table. Of its substantive merit, however, I am able to speak 
with great confidence, and am inclined to speak with great warmth. 
I had not supposed the subject capable of being made attractive and 
impressive ; and was much surprised to find that your volume is so 
characterized by direct, lucid, and forcible reasoning, by purity and 
simplicity of language, and by manly though modest sincerity of 
self-conviction, as to rivet my attention and satisfy my judgment 
from the beginning to the end. You seem to me to have accom- 
plished, by great labour of mind and singleness of aim, an improve- 
ment in the art of explaining and teaching the mechanism of our 
language, which I think deserves all the rewards consequent upon 
public adoption and patronage. Very truly and respectfully, 

Your friend and servant, 
G. M. Dallas. 

James Brown, Esq. 

April 6, 1854. 
Dear Sir, 

I profess to be something of a grammarian, and therefore I felt 
anxious to examine your " Class Book of Criticism upon the Old 
Theory of English Grammar." I have examined it carefully, and 
to my entire satisfaction, and I consider it the best work of the 
kind that has ever come under my notice. I have handed it over to 
my son, who had been instructed upon the old system, aad I am con- 
vinced that he gained more knowledge from its perusal, as to the 
nature and structure of language, than months of previous instruc- 
tion had afforded. I sincerely hope that the Board of Controllers of 
the First School District will sanction the use of this work as a Bead- 
ing Book, in the Public Schools. Very truly, 

David Paul Brown. 

James Brown, Esq. 

April 6, 1854. 
James Brown's Class Book of Criticism, written with great care 
and accuracy, is well calculated for a reading book in the higher 
classes of our Public Schools, both on account of its matter and 
correct diction. P. A. Cregar, 

Principal S. E. G. School. 
I fully concur in the above opinion of Mr. Cregar. i 

John Joyce, 
Principal of Weccacoe Boys' Gram. School. 
James C. Fisher, M. D., 

Principal of S. W. G. School. 



A CIRCULAR TO TEACHERS. 



Philadelphia. 1853. 

Gentlemen: — The unwelcome task which the teaching' as 
well as the learning of the present popular theory of English 
Grammar, imposes upon the instructor, and the pupil, is 'prima 
facie evidence of a great deficiency in the system. And the 
frank admission of all who acquire a knowledge of this theory, 
that " they do not understand the grammar of the English 
language" fully establishes the existence of this defect. Under 
this impression, and wishing to promote the cause of general 
education to the extent of my power, I have undertaken to 
supply this deficiency by offering to the public through your 
agency, the Rational system of English Grammar. I offer this 
work as a substitute for the English Grammars now used in 
schools, and, should you wish to introduce a substitute for the 
old theory, I would invite your attention to my Rational system 
in three boohs. 

The First Book teaches the division of a sentence into 
sections, a complete analysis of each section as the trunk 
or branch of the sentence, and of words as the trunk, and 
branch parts of sections. The division of a sentence into sec- 
tions; and the classification of these sections into trunk, and 
branch orders, are parts of English Grammar, which the old 
theory does not even attempt to teach. A grammarian who is 
unable to divide a sentence into sections, cannot read it with 
ease, and propriety : he is as much bewildered with its sense 
as is an untaught gazer at the nocturnal heavens with the con- 
fusion that seems to exist among the stars which light up this 
kingdom of night. But as the well taught astronomer sees per- 
fect harmony, and clear method throughout this wonderful 
machinery of lights, so the skilful sectionizer of a sentence, 
apprehends the exact import of this verbal structure, with a 
certainty, and a strength which nothing but a capacity to divide 



A CIRCULAR. 

a sentence into sections, and ascertain their true sense relation, 
can give to the mind. As the reader proceeds, the entire 
thought of the writer becomes almost visible to him ; and he 
breaks it into sections which he classes as trunks and branches 
of the same mental assemblage, with as much ease, and accuracy 
as a well taught botanist would class the component parts of a 
tree. As soon as a pupil can divide a sentence into sections, 
and refer eacli section to its proper order, or class, he should 
commence the entire process of construing, which consists in 
a variety of constructive evolutions that tend to enable him to 
map off, and connect the different ideas of the writer with as 
much ease, and correctness as a practised engineer can sketch 
a canal, dock, or harbor upon paper. As the entire movement 
of the pupil engaged in the process of scanning, and constru- 
ing, is one in which each step that is taken with accuracy, is 
induced, and directed by the sense itself, it is not only calcu- 
lated to enable pupils to investigate the mind of another through 
the medium of his writings, but to enable them to promote tha 
growth of their own minds to almost any extent. There seem 
to be few objects in art, or nature, well calculated to give a 
comprehensive view of this process. Perhaps, while a dissected 
map of the United States represents a sectionized sentence as 
clearly as any other thing which can be found, the act of put- 
ting its component parts together, represents the process of 
Scanning, and Construing- with as much precision, drndperspi- 
cuity as any other operation which is common among us. The 
entire map is the entire sentence — and the division of it into 
the different States, the division of a sentence into different 
sections. The process of properly describing, and placing each 
State, may give some idea of the process of properly describing, 
and placing each section of the sentence, and giving the sense 
connection of every word of a section. As in the dissected 
map, a State may be located far from the particular States 
which actually bound it, so in the sectionized sentence, a sub- 
section may be placed far from its own sz^>er~section, the sec- 
tion with which the sub holds a sense relation. And as the 
putting of the component parts of the map together will bring 
the misplaced State next to those which actually bound it, so 



A C1HCULAK* 



the sense reading of the sub-section will bring it in direct con- 
tact with its super section. 

The First Book, is not only a means of teaching the sense 
relation of one ivord to another word, but an instrument for 
presenting that manly, mental, subtle coincidence, vibrating 
between °the relative sections which compose the sentence* 
The part called Construing, treats of 

words in their collective action, their collective bearing, and 
in their collective import— and, while it may be clearly 
comprehended even by children, it is not unworthy of the 
close attention of men, of scholars, of philosophers. Con- 
struing consists of dividing a sentence into sections, ascer- 
taining their true sense relation, learning their exact dictions* 
and referring the inferior sections to their respective superiors. 
This exercise urges the pupil to trace out the precise sense 
connection of the sections, by following the filaments which 
produce it ; and thus fits him to discern the exact meaning of 
any writer whose language he may read. It prepares the pupil 
to read with an understanding which renders study easy, de- 
lightful, and highly profitable. Construing gives the pupil a 
knowledge of language which qualifies him to acquire the other 
branches of education with an expedition, ease, and satisfaction, 
that render study advantageous, and pleasing. Made familiar 
with Construing, the pupil's mind kindles into fervor; and he 
pursues his study as much for the pleasure of the exercise as 
for the advantage of knowledge. And, whether his eye is 
turned to the sign of the type, or his ear directed to the lan- 
guage of the tongue, he seizes the period with animation, 
movies along the constructive fibres which extend from section 
to section, works his passage through the entire sentence, and 
comes out with every thing which philosophy can glean, vi 
acuteness discern. 



■James Brown's Books.- [See Back Cover.] 



CONTENTS. 



Remarks - - ~ - - -2 

Preface - 3 

Advertisement - - * - - -15 

Names of persons recommending the inceptive works - 16 
Names of those who recommend the Rational System as it now is 17 

Proceedings of the Legislature of Pennsylvania - 18 

Hon. G-eorge Sharswood's letter - - - - 19 

S. W. Crawford, V.J). - - - - 20 

A. B. Ivins - - - - - 20 

P. A. Cregar ---.._ 21 
John Joyce ---._.. 22 

George W. Biddle, Esq. 24 

N. H. Maguire - - - - . - 24 

L. Bedford ---.-. 24 

A. C. Roy - - - . . 24 

Thomas S. Smith Esq. 25 

William D. Young - - -.".«. -26 

Notice ------ 28 

Introduction - - - . . - 29 

Chapter I.— Truth, and Knowledge 43 

Chapter II. — Language - - - - - 45 

Chapter III.— Definition of English Grammar - 47 

Chapter IV.— A Sentence - - - - 51 

Chapter V.— Division of a Sentence into Sections - 54 

Constructions said to be of Difficult Solution - - 85 

Chapter VI.— Scanning ... 94 

Chapter VII— The Old Theory of English Grammar not a 

feystem - go 

Chapter VIII.— Parts of Speech - - - - 113 
Chapter IX.— Mr. Murray did not wish to Conform to the 

Grammar of other Languages - - - H8 

Chapter X.— Synoptical view of the Subject - - 121 

Chapter XL— The Old Definition of a Noun - - 131 

Chapter XII.— Case in English - - - 147 

Chapter XIII.— Nominative Case - . - 152 

Chapter XIV.— Possessive Case - . 171 

Chapter XV.— Objective Case - .- _ - 1«0 

Letter by P. A. Browne, L. L. D. » . 205 



RECOMMENDATIONS. O 

Leicisbitrg, Marshall Co., Tenn., July 2d, 1852. 
Sir, — We have examined a system of Grammar by James Brown 
of Philadelphia, Penn'a. — We are of the opinion that it is decidedly 
superior lo any other system we have seen. We have adopted the 
work in cur schools, but few of the books can be had in our coun- 
try ; and, for the want of them, we have to teach the technicalities 
by lecture. We have solicited our merchants to send on for the 
books ; and they have done so, but have failed to procure a sufficient 
quantity to answer our purpose. We, therefore, wish you to send 
us 300 Book I.; 300 Book II. ; one copy Class Book of Criticisms 
and one of Exegesis. Yours, &c. 

HENRY M'CULLOUGH, and, 
BENJAMIN M'CONNEL. 



The following recommendation of the "Rational System," was ad* 
dressed to the Editor of the Baltimore Republican. 

Mr. Editor, — I have recently examined a work, entitled " The 
Hational System of English Grammar." This work I am now 
Using- in my Academy, in preference to all others of the kind. I 
consider it simple in its construction, and calculated to give even 
the infant pupil the grammar of the English language ; and, at the 
same time more pleasing and animating than any other production 
on English grammar. And, although the fact of adopting this 
Grammar is a sufficient expression of my approbation, yet I can 
hardly refrain from making a few observations besides the one al- 
ready made. 

From the nature of the subject, this book is emphatically address*, 
ed to teachers in the United States. Mr. Murray's English Gram- 
mar, originally compiled for the student in the closet only, has, for 
the want of a correct system, been generally introduced into our 
schools — and it has now acquired so much power, as to exercise, in 
many instances, almost complete dominion over reason itself This 
I call, custom which, says Dr. Gill, " is a tyrant, and ought to be 
rebelled against." Indeed, his work has been so long in use in one 
form, or another, that many believe it originally designed by Mr. 
Murray himself, as a school book ; and one too, which he thought 
well calculated to give a full, and clear expression of the genius of 
the English language. But, if facts can be depended upon, Mr. 
Murray must h^ve been surprised to see his compilation taken into 
school^ and placed in the hands of children. This unexpected mark 
of patronage induced Mr. Murray to attempt the adaptation of his 
Grammar to the capacities of children. In this, however, he has 
never succeeded. This learned compiler, believing that the princi- 
ples which he had accumulated from the writings of different men 
and which are almost the soul and body of his whole system, are 
correct, has given great attention to the manner of presenting them 
to the mind of youth. 

Mr. Murray arranged, and varied, till, in his judgment, the sub- 
ject of English grammar was exhausted, and the object which he 
had in view, fully attained. Teachers, however, still found it labo- 
rious, and fatiguing to instruct by Mr. Murray's system: and, if we 
may judge by their numerous attempts to improve it, we may well 
conclude that his work is susceptible of much further simplification 



v liEC05nJENi)ATI0N§, 

Not only teachers, but almost all men of letters, hate seen that 
something- has been wrong, which they have labored to rectify. 
Hence Mr. Murray's system of English Grammar has undergone 
revision after revision, till, (if we are not much deceived) there are 
very few 7 learned men who have not attempted to improve it. But 
unfortunately for themselves, and for the world also, they have all 
bestowed their labor upon the body of the system, to the complete 
neglect of its soul. They have engaged their minds to improve the 
mode of presenting erroneous principles. But error never can be 
simple, though the tale be told in words of topaz; it never can be 
beautiful, though it be set in diamonds* Let two instances of error 
suffice, as a sample of the whole system :— "The objective case ex* 
presses the object of an action, or of a relation." — Murray. 

From this definition, who would think of parsing the name of the 
actor in the objective case ? Yet we find the noun, Saul, in the 
following example, in the objective — 

" The Christians were persecuted by Saul i" 

Does Saul express the object of the action 1 No. This word 
denotes the agent, the actor himself. How, then, can this noun, by 
virtue of this definition, be parsed in the objective? 

Again:— The common definition of the infinitive mood runs 
thus : " The infinitive mood expresses being or action, in an unlim- 
ited or general manner." 

One example will put this definition to the test, and its friends to 
the blush ; — John is to eat an apple. 

To eat, is in the infinitive mood. But is it uncertain who is to 
eat an apple? Is this act general and unlimited ? 

Again — " John is to be hanged." Is this act general, and unlim- 
ited ? If so, John is in no more danger than Sally ! But enough 
of this. They who would see more, are desired to read a work by 
JAMES BROWN, which he has very justly entitled " A Class Book 
of Criticism ; or, an Appeal from the present Popular System of 
English Grammar, to Common Sense." The reader will here find a 
full, and an accurate investigation or those principles which have 
long been sanctioned, not by truth and consistency, but by authority. 

Having read this work which is amusing and instructive, the 
reader will, by perusing the Grammar itself, see that Mr. Brown 
does not labor to improve the mode of presenting these principles 
He will find a plan of grammatical machinery, moved by the~power 
of truth, beautified by consistency, and sustained by the genius, and 
dignity of our own vernacular tongue, Yes, the " Rational Sys- 
tem " proffers to the world a mental system of English grammar, 
original, true, copious, simple, and energetic — honourable to this 
country, and creditable to the author. — The "Rational System" de- 
lights the learner, while it taxes his perceptive powers — it lessens 
the labor and vexation of the teacher, while it enables him to do 
the work of instruction thoroughly, and deep. The author of this 
work is now before this enlightened community, and he should, for 
the good of youth, be noticed — he is now before his native country, 
and, for the good of that country, should be sustained. 

E. BENNETT. 
Principal of the Academy in the basement story of the 3d 
Presbyterian Church, N. Eutaw Street, Baltimore* 



RECOMMENDATIONS. 7 

The following is from a letter of the Rev. Mr. Findlay, Baltimore, 
No man can read the criticisms of Mr. Brown without feeling 
at once ashamed of his own subjection to authority, and gratified 
with the author's ingenuity, and correctness. Brown is a philoso- 
pher — he has founded his system of Grammar upon the basis of 
the mind ; he has succeeded in redeeming the Grammar of our 
Language from every thing arbitrary. The learner is now treated 
as a thinking being, instead of, as Lindley Murray says, or as the 
rule says ; there is a fitness in the thing itself, which commends 
itself to the judgment, and taste of the learner. The day is at 
hand when a complete revolution is to be accomplished, when the 
bonds of irrational prejudice must be broken off, and the mind of 
the rising generation, in the first stage of scientific attainment, 
taught to assert its native dignity, and independence. But what 
can patience, and genius do in these unobtrusive walks of science, 
without the aid of the influential in society ? Let the system have 
an investigation, and a fair trial ; and, if found to be the system 
of truth, why not adopt it ? 



An extract from a letter of the late John Sanderson, late Professor 

of Languages in the Philadelphia High School. 
Bitter complaints are made by critics, and philosophers in Great 
Britain of the insufficiency of their English Grammars. " They 
are compilations," says the Edinburgh Review, "of silly rules, 
crowding the memory, and debasing the understanding of the 
pupil — a jargon of nickname definitions, the learning of which 
is a mere ad captandum ceremony, making a parrot of the pupil to 
delight his grandmother, and to give notoriety to his schoolmaster, 
and academy." * *^ .**-*. # 

Brown is emphatically a grammarian. He has invaded thia 
province of philosophy, and made it his own by conquest. 

John Sanderson. 



Extract of a letter from Prof Espy to a friend. 

Philadelphia, January, 1854. 

My Dear Sir, — In answer to your question, What do I think oj 
James Brown 7 s new system of English Grammar? I reply that 1 
have been acquainted with this gentleman's profound investiga- 
tions into the very mysteries of our language, for many years ; 
and I am sure that he has done more than any other man to lay 
open the absurdities, and inconsistencies of Murray, and his host of 
followers. But this is not all. He has built up a beautiful, and 
luminous system of his own, founded, as I conceive, on true prin- 
ciples, simple in their nature, and coherent in all their parts. 
He has thus formed English grammar into a science which, from 
the logical connection of all its parts, furnishes youth with an 
exercise that is as fine, and as healthful to the mind as any in the 
whole circle of the sciences. 

I have taught English Grammar thirty years, and read all the 
Grammars of any note ; but I have found none, except the new 
system by James Brown, which is not full of absurdities, and con- 
tradictions. I feel a deep interest in the progress of a sound, ra- 
tional education; and, if my voice could be heard through the 
whole length, and breadth of our land, I would say to all teachers, 
examine the work carefully for yourselves. 

Yours, truly, 

James P. Espy. 



RECOMMENDATIONS 

OF THE 

FIRST, AND OF THE SECOND ROUND 

IN THE 

LABDEE OF EDUCATION. 

BY JAMES BKOWN. 



I have examined with much pleasure your school books entitled 
" The First" and "The Second Round in the Ladder of Education." 
They are, without exception, the best works of the kind that haye 
ever been published. The enabling of a child to learn the sounds 
of the letters as well as syllable reading by the aid of the organs 
of vision, is indeed admirable. But above all, I value the intro- 
duction of the prefixes in the " Second Round," which, although 
they serve as a key to the general meaning of nearly twenty thou- 
sand common English words, have hitherto been kept from the 
child, because the makers of the common primers have devised 
no means by which the mere child can learn them. 

I am persuaded that your whole plan will be approved by per- 
sons accustomed to teaching. Your " Second Round" ought to be 
studied by all adults who are deficient in a knowledge of the mean- 
ing of words; and both "Rounds" should be used in all schools 
and families in which Primary Books are required. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

Peter A. Browne. 



Philadelphia, Nov. 21st, 1849. 
I have examined with a high degree of care and interest, two 
little works by James Brown, designed to render greater aid to 
both teacher and pupil in the first steps of an English education ; 
the titles are the "First" and the "Second Round in the Ladder of 
Education," and I feel perfectly convinced that these two Rounds 
are better calculated to aid the teacher in putting the pupil up'.this 
ladder, and the pupil in ascending it, than any other works which 
have hitherto been employed for the same purpose. 

J. H. Brown, A. M. 
Principal of the Zane street Boys' Granmar Szhaoh 



RECOMMENDATIONS. 

November 13*7*, 1850. 
I have examined Mr. J. Brown's small Grammar, (Book I.,) and 
am of opinion that it is calculated to shed so much light upon gram- 
matical science, that great assistance may be derived from it, by 
the teacher and the learner. 

THOMAS S. SMITH. 



I have looked through The First of a series of books by Mr. 
J. Brown on the subject of English Grammar ; and with pleasure I 
recommend its use in schools. 

Its teachings are founded on a severe and just analysis of the 
nature of language, and the principles of the subject are clearly ex. 
pressed and happily illustrated. 

This work will not only save the pupil much time in learning 
grammar but it will improve the capa- 

city of the learner for analyzing the language even by the theory 
now in use, and give him much more skill in the art of using it 
with grammatical propriety than he can acquire from the old books 
alone, 

JOHN D. BLEIGHT. 



I consider James Brown's " First Book" on English Grammar 
an excellent auxiliary in teaching and learning this science 

The work, though 
small, has great simplicity, and much philosophy. I value this 
work because it is calculated to impart a knowledge of the con- 
structive principles of the English Language, a part of grammar in 
which the old system is very defective. 

NICHOLAS H. MAGUEIR. 
Principal of Coates's Street Grammar School. 

Philadelphia, November 10th, 1850. 
In studying Mr. James Brown's First Book on the Grammar 
of the English Language, the pupil makes an excellent preparation 
for learning the common theory of English Grammar. From the 
impression which a close examination of the work, has left on my 
mind, and from that which the witnessing of an application of its 
principles in the teaching of children, has made on it, I most heartily 
wish to see the book in general use. 

LOUISA BEDFORD, 
- Principal of the Harrison Grammar School, Female Department. 



10 RECOMMENDATIONS. 

Philadelphia, November 2nd, 1850. 
To James Brown, Esq., 

Dear Sir : — I have examined your First Book on the Grammar 
of the English Language, and have found it replete with good sense. 
The principles which it inculcates, are new, sound, simple, and im- 
portant . and I consider a knowledge of them, an invaluable pre- 
paration for studying Grammar 

Having had some experience in writing for the Press, I will add 
that, many who are deficient in a knowledge of punctuation, but 
who write well in other respects, should have your First Book. It 
would be well for every compositor, and proof-reader to possess this 
valuable work. 

I am, dear sir, your obt. sert., 

PETER A. BROWNE. 



Philadelphia, November 26th, 1850. 
I have examined Mr. James Brown's Fjtrst Book on English 
Grammar, and, from a conviction, that pupils who study it, lay an 
excellent foundation, for the acquisition of English grammar, 
I most heartily wish to see the book in all our schools. 

A. T. W. WRIGHT, 
Principal of the Philadelphia Normal School. 



Philadelphia, November 28th, 1850. 
To James Brown, Esq., 

Dear Sir : — I have examined the First Book of your new system 
cf English Grammar, and I am much pleased with the clear 
notions it gives of the exact structure of sentences. I feel satisfied 
that every one who studies it will derive great assistance in the 
acquirement of a correct knowledge of the constructive philosophy 
of our language; and, under this impression, I sincerely hope it 
may be introduced into all our schools, that children 

may have the important aid which this little work is so 
Well calculated to afford. 

I am, very respectfully yours, 

Geo. W. BIDDLE. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



CW ASV^WWNAMW 



i 



E 



BOOKS PUBLISH 
JAMES BR 




No. 15 93UTH TENTH STREET, THRfcfi DOORS ABOVE CHESTNUT 1HILADE 

And offered to the Trade, Teachers, and Priuate Learners, at the following net 

JAMES BROWN'S SERIES OF NEW SCHOOL BOOK 
The Alphascope, a chart by which a child can be taught the names, 

sounds of the letters of the alphabet in a few short lessons, 12| c 
The First Round in the Ladder of Education, a small work com; 

ing a description of the new method of teaching children the nam 

and sounds of the letters by means of the Alphascope, 10 r 

The Hand-Nomascope, a card giving a complete view of the names of 

letters, Per dozen 50 cts, 

The Second Round in the Ladder of Education, 

This book comprises a new method of teaching the prefixes, and .he raeaningM word6 i; I lij 
language j the whole is Illustrated with cuts, intended to impress most thoroughly the meaning of > •,'. 
upon the mind of the child. 

The First Book of the Rational System of English Grammar, 25 ta 

[This work is now used in the Public Grammar Schools in the First School District of Pennsv i\ 

The Second Book of the Rational System :f ExNglish Grammar, 
signed to teach the process of analyzing ihe English language 
sound judgment, and the art of using it with grammatical propri 

50 

This is offered as a substitute for the old theory ; and, ahhough, in general, •* employs the old to 
Un-ms in analyzing.ita principles and definitions are entirely new. 

The Third Book of the Rational System of English Grammar, 
signed to enable the learner to become most thoroughly acquar 
'■ Hh the nature, and use of the prepositions — it may be read bv 
.ther in, or out of school, 50 cts 

A Class Book of Criticisms on the Common Theory of English Gra rv 
mar, and on the writings of its Compilers. Designed for the use 
Colleges, private readers, and advanced schools, G2J cts. Per Vol 

This ; ■ grammars— expose, their defects, demonstrates the little use of attendii . 

'grammar of the Engl is b language, 
most profound philologist ; a* 
-x position, the lawyer's interp:\ 
juridical discussion, and the rr^istrate's confirmati: sion. 

Brown's Exegesis of the true way of analyzing words, and con?truct;c>« 

said to be of difficult resolution, 
Brown's System of Parsing Forms. 25 cts, 

Philadelphia, August, 1819, 

that John T. Lange has no connection \rith any of my hooks, and that the »o*fcj 
| which he jmblislied tor a short time, have since been much improved by the author. f 

. VV IS A 



